After reading Dan's post I found this 6 hour-old post at Editor & Publisher, a journal that covers the newspaper industry. Although focusing on "sibling rivalry" in "clashing" WaPo and Newsweek polls, an interesting point rises to the surface in the article:

The Newsweek poll released today found that 53% of Americans believe that reports that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens goes too far in invading people's privacy. Some 41% feel it is a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

But on Friday, a widely-publicized Washington Post/ABC survey revealed, to the contrary, that 63% of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44% who strongly endorsed the effort. Only 35% said the program was unacceptable.

So what happened? Most likely views changed that much in one day after more negative media reports (including many from conservative commentators such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) surfaced. The Washington Post survey took place before many Americans had heard about, or thought about, the implications. The Newsweek Poll also reached twice as many Americans.

The Washington Post/ABC survey was conducted Thursday, just after the NSA news broke via USA Today, and reached just 502 citizens. Newsweek polled 1007 Americans on both Thursday and Friday. It found that even 27% of Republicans voiced disapproval of the phone records program.

The Newsweek results were pretty stark: 57% of Americans say the administration has gone too far in expanding presidential power, while only 38% say they have not. The president's job approval rating in this poll declined one point to 35%.

It's the statement that "Most likely views changed that much in one day after more negative media reports", this by a journal that covers the newspaper industry, that practically makes my point for me. Add in the questions directed to Dan, some obviously a wee bit - shall we be nice here and say "leading", and without getting into a long dissertation on the subject here (something I lack the qualifications to undertake in the first place), and this simple and humble South Georgia farm boy is left with little option than to believe that the media does in fact affect public opinion, does so with an agenda, and that the pollsters pose offer questions that "lead" responders toward one direction.

I've known Dan through the blogging community for some time now, and although once in a great while we'll differ on an issue, I know him to exercise good judgement. So I trust his assessment of the conversation with the questioner, and when I see Dan make statements like "it's impossible to feel other than someone was bascially asking me if I approve of the President in a context which suggested there was reason for concern" and "there seems to emerge a sort of tone", I can't help but take away a sense that there is definately an agenda here, and it certainly isn't to affect public opinion in favor of the administration.

So let's try to find a simple take away message here. By the account of a journal that routinely follows the newspaper industry (and from experience and also common knowledge) we know that negative media reports affect public opinion (an obvious no-brainer here), and from Dan's "fair and balanced" account we hear of "certain tones" that left him with a sense that the questions suggested there was reason for concern over the administrations policies, and gee golly gee, we have it: Our take-home message is that negative media reports affect public opinion, and polls have misleading questions that may be "toned" (we're talking about an agenda, folks) toward negative results as pertains to the interests of the administration.

But wait, there's just one more little component to our take home message. What happens with the poll results? They get reported by the media - the negative results of the poll (as pertains to the interests of the administration) are reported (again in as negative a manner as possible) which then does what? You got it - views change (more toward the negative) after more negative media reports.

Gosh, it's a wonder George Bush has such "high" favorability ratings after all this - it should be zero!

Post Script : One of Dan's commenters made a very good point. The questioner that called Dan asked for the youngest male in the household (assuming here they meant adult male over 18). The commenter says, "... don't you think they asked for the youngest male as being the one most likely to be drafted and sent to war if the draft is re-instated ... and therefore perhaps the most likely to disapprove of war and fighting terrorism?" Good point! Gee, that couldn't have anything to do with "weighting", could it? Nawww, the polster wouldn't even think of that .....