Our survey says…

Quite serendipitous that this familiar phrase quoted from a very popular American game show that pits wits of one family against another clan would be the title of this piece. At least the questions asked by that game show’s host are related to general information so that the most popular answers are ranked accordingly. And in the typical brazen showbiz manner that boosts ratings for this show, the master of ceremonies confidently turns to an electronic board and asks if the given replies correspond to the data gathered. The dreaded strike mark elicits boos from the audience, but it is definitely all portrayed in the spirit of fair play. The ding-ding-ding of the bell is a reward for correct responses that draw favorable applause and respective dollar earnings for the lucky brood, who excitedly clap along as well. 

The educational aspect of what favorite foods 100 people like to munch on while watching sports may be classified under useless trivia, but it nonetheless adds to the fun factor of this classic game show.

With the advent of technological advances nowadays wherein information is readily available at the touch of a button, perhaps we might be unknowingly swayed or subtly predisposed by the type of data we get our hands on. Influenced by this type of fast food info, does the picture become clearer, or are there certain knobs that blur it further? Are we seeing the actual photograph of a beautiful model, for example, or has sophisticated software been strategically applied to highlight positives? On the other hand, unflattering sides can also be maliciously accentuated with some clever deft clicks of the computer mouse.

Unfortunately, the highly-charged environment of the current elections is not exempt in any way from all this hoopla and spin. Local and national campaign tacticians are obviously biased for the candidates and platforms they are feverishly marketing. If there are particular facts or aspects that could possibly sway more votes to a particular campaign’s favor, why not use it to gain an advantage? Here lies the cause of blurriness that pretentiously evolves to unfair speculations, naturally.

A reportedly GO-commissioned survey is one such case. The survey presents sample inquiries that deliberately suggest that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is a thief, and that the economic gains attributed to her administration are merely administration rhetoric. Moreover, through the use of leading, blatantly-biased questions, it prompts respondents to assume that the May polls are predetermined and will be tainted by cheating done by the government and its allies. 

This type of questioning presupposes misconceptions instead of allowing balanced offerings. The assumption of guilt is stressed unabashedly and unashamedly. Any innocent pleading is hurriedly swept under the statistical computation’s rug. It’s like telling someone that a special delicacy tastes awful and yucky before the first bite is consumed, instead of allowing the taster to make his own decision.

About a decade or so ago, there was a soft drink company that challenged consumers to a taste test, pitting its brand against the dominant brand. A beer company likewise used this type of blind taste testing as part of its advertising blitz. Just think, in both cases, if it leaked out that the competitor’s brand was spiked with additives that flavored it to taste bad so that the participant would always choose the favored brand, the entire test would be deemed a sham. The corporation peddling the consumable product and conducting the purportedly non-discriminatory test would lose the consumer’s support for rigging the experiment.

Admittedly, professional survey firms are at the behest of those who pay for the study. However, they should perhaps be more prudent in submitting balanced statistics based on legitimate and un-slanted propositions. After all, they play an important part in helping the public become more aware of the general sentiments of the populace. If they allow themselves to be frequently (and innocently?) influenced, then what hope have we of receiving relevant, unbiased, simon-pure data? The cake has been deemed inedible before a true taste test can attest to its scrumptiousness or so-so-ness.

Much like the election process, children are invited to Please, taste and eat, so that they can freely choose for themselves if they would like some more.

I would rather believe and unequivocally support inquiries that allow me to appreciate an unobstructed view of the voting landscape. There may be alleged anomalies committed by both candidates seeking the desired position, but will that be the basis that dissuades me from voting conscientiously and decisively? Pros and cons, facts and figures, not uncorroborated accusations, should be the order of the day. I’d rather have my drink untainted.

My sincere hope is that future evaluations and feedbacks do show the real picture. They are very important and timely so that appropriate strategies can be made to properly aid weak points and continuously strengthen secure standings. If gathered information is to be believed, just like food, the proof is in the pudding. Don’t mask the pure taste, survey chefs. Don’t aim for a strike mark. Welcome the ding-ding-ding that signifies what is widely preferred.

My e-mail: [email protected]