Thanks for the link. I like this one too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y.

Why do you give credibility to all these polls?

They are lazy journalism, since no reporter has to go out and do any real work. The accountants love it because it is cheap, God forbid you spend money and time on investigative reporting! The marketing people love it since the poll gets your organization's name free advertising.

Numbers are easy to digest, but nobody questions how the numbers are even gotten. You can basically prove anything with a poll. It just depends on how you ask the questions. An old episode of the brilliant British comedy Yes Prime Minister explains it all. Here is a link so you don't have to bother Andy Lanset: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

I'm perplexed with this segment. It appears previous commmentors missed the premise of this segment. But let me ask:

When the press was plainly asleep at the wheel on many, many important news stories of the last X (use your favorite number 2, 4, 7, 12) years, like Quest Communications, Enron, Iraq, California's (supposed) energy shortage, Helen Thomas getting kicked out of White House Press Room, and continues to regurgitate the spew from both government and private corporation, without question. Why would you expect trust?

This is like the bad cop that shots and kills an innocent person every week, and the press that reports, "Person dead, cop says he saw the shadows of a gun."

If there were a lot more "squeaking wheels" in this country, then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

It is an interesting question that Pew asks (http://people-press.org/report/452/public-favors-bailout), “As you may know, the gov is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong for the gov to be doing” (57% right thing to do and 30 wrong thing to do)?

Pew’s question is leading. How about “as you may know, the government is trying to save us. Do you thing that a good idea,” or “as you may know, the government is trying to maintain the status quo by putting more cards on the top of the finical house. Do you think that a good idea?”

I was angered by the implication of this interview: that people who call or write to their elected officials are somehow subverting the democratic process that is better represented by public opinion polls. 1.) I've never been polled by Pew or CBS or the Washington Post or anyone else about my political opinions, and neither has anyone else I know, so I have to wonder who the "public" in "public opinion" is. 2.) It's well known that the way a pollster asks a question can determine the results of the poll, so I question the validity of public opinion polls. 3.) What good does it do to ask people who don't understand the bailout plan or the crisis it's meant to address how they feel about the bailout? 4.) Although people who write to or call their elected officials may likely be more "ideological," they may also be better informed about both the issues and the fundamental duties of citizenship. 5.) Although the value of direct citizen access to politicians was questioned, no one mentioned the direct access of lobbyists and other big-money entities--is their direct influence somehow more indicative of the public's wants and needs than the voices of individual citizens?

I teach, and I never tire of telling my students that contacting their elected officials is one, fairly simple, way that they can participate in the democratic process. In my interpretation, your interview undermined that means of participation.