Media: Lies, damned lies and journalists

Today's Globe has an interesting take on state residents' feelings about legalizing slot machine gambling at Massachusetts racetracks.

The article by Scott Helman played on the front of the Globe's online site and bore this large headline: "Most in state poll back slot machines"

Sounds pretty straightforward, eh? Not so fast.

In reality:
41% are against slot machine gambling, either slightly or strongly
6% don't have an opinion
53% are for slot machine gambling, slightly or strongly
The margin of error on this poll of 503 "likely voters" is +- 4.4%

... meaning, basically, that all the Globe can really say is that people are pretty divided. Even without the 4.4% uncertainty, 47% dislike the idea or have no opinion, and 53% want gambling.

Now consider the 4.4% margin of error that the Globe's writers and editors failed to consider when writing the headline and lead. It's possible that 51% of voters oppose the slot machine proposal, and 49% think it's OK.

In its defense, the Globe will say that 53% of something is a majority, and "most" can mean "majority" and they're on firm ground. However, American English writers and speakers tend to use "most" to refer to a very solid majority, as in "nearly everyone," not the "half of everyone plus one" technical sense that gets the Globe off the hook here. The reporter then goes on to run with the idea that this "most" signifies some sort of mandate, when it's not that at all.

The article also carries the requisite "quotes from the opponents" but the headline and lead of the story - by definition the most important of all the words in it - suggest that many, many more voters want slot machines in racetracks than do not, and that's simply not the case.

Globe article Mar 13, 2006: Most in state poll back slot machines


Excerpts from original article:

With the House expected to take up the issue later this month, the apparent support for slots among voters is sure to add fuel to a fierce debate over whether Massachusetts should expand gambling as well as the potential costs and benefits of doing so.

Fifty-three percent of voters surveyed said they were in favor of legalizing slot machines, and 41 percent said they were opposed, while 6 percent said they were neutral. Highly educated voters were more likely to say they opposed slot machines, and those with high school diplomas or some college education were more inclined to favor them.

The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, was taken of 503 randomly selected likely voters March 3 to 9. It has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

One argument proponents of slot machines make is that scores of Massachusetts residents, faced with nowhere to gamble in their home state, are instead spending their money every week at casinos and racinos in Connecticut and Rhode Island. That money, supporters say, should be spent here so Massachusetts gets the tax revenue.

The Globe poll indicates that the out-of-state travel is real: Nearly a third of all respondents said they had traveled outside Massachusetts in the past year specifically to visit a casino or gaming facility.

That is why poll respondent Joe Lavin, 56, of Springfield, believes the state ought to allow slot machines at racetracks, though he does not believe expanded gambling is good for Massachusetts.

''They're all running down to Connecticut anyway, so I figure we might as well keep the money," said Lavin, who works at a residential facility for the mentally handicapped. ''I think it's an awful idea, but it's all over the place."Continued...

Another respondent, Nancy Bernhard, a 43-year-old writer from Somerville, said she has mixed feelings about slots. She said she would welcome additional funding for the schools if slot machines generated it, but she also thinks they are bad for people and would attract crime.

''I'm kind of torn," Bernhard said.

A push for slots by the racetracks has gained momentum in recent months after the state Senate passed a measure in the fall that would allow the state's four tracks -- Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere, Suffolk Downs in East Boston, Raynham Park in Raynham, and Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville -- to add up to 2,000 slot machines each. The House is expected to take up a slot machine bill in the next couple weeks, though it's not yet evident what it will be.

Supporters of legalizing slot machines, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and other prominent mayors and politicians around the state, contend that slot machine gambling would generate about $350 million annually for the state, as well as $100 million in initial start-up license fees. They also say it would save the dying racing industry and thus preserve thousands of jobs.

Opponents assert that the potential benefits of allowing racinos are severely overstated and that the added costs to the state will offset any purported additional revenue.

The poll respondents most likely to favor legalizing slot machines were those who had visited a casino recently. Voters under age 35, Republicans, and residents of Central Massachusetts -- who live closest to the two big Connecticut casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods -- were the most likely to have visited a casino.