Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please.

Moderator Michael Dukakis has just called tonight's meeting to order.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us here in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall on The Advocates. During the weeks preceding the presidential election on November 7, a wide variety of public opinion polls appeared to show Senator McGovern far behind President Nixon, and certainly the results on election day bore out those predictions. Did the publication of those polls have an effect on the outcome of the presidential election, and does the publication of candidate preference polls impair or distort the democratic process? That's the underlying question which we debate tonight. And we turn first to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Dukakis. Last week on election day, millions of Americans watched the Today show on NBC. Less than two minutes of that broadcast were on substantive issues. More than 39 minutes were devoted to polls and predictions. Once again, people were told how they were going to vote. That day, 45 percent of the Americans of voting age stayed home and did not go to the polls.

A detailed study has just been made of the TV evening news coverage of the primary campaigns, the Democratic primaries from last November to last June. During that period, NBC evening news had 316 stories about the campaign. Less than one-half of those stories made any mention of any substantive issue. The other networks were about equally bad. This impartial study concludes that any citizen who wished to know what the candidates had to say about the issues and what their qualifications were for high office had very little help from television news. Yet TV is the principal source of news for more than 60 percent of Americans.

Tonight, we consider how the media should allocate their resources, how they should spend their time. I believe that they should concentrate on the issues and on the competence, the ability, and the experience of the candidates themselves. Polls on issues help politicians understand their electorate, but one kind of poll that contributes very little to the democratic process is what we call the head-to-head poll, the candidate preference poll. It's the "Who's ahead now?" kind of poll, and publication of these horse race figures do little good and cause great harm.

Now, pollsters themselves are becoming increasingly concerned about the media treatment of their polls, irresponsible use of their polls. We have one pollster with us tonight, Dr. Herschel Shosteck. Would you take the stand?

Welcome to The Advocates, Dr. Shosteck.

Mr. Shosteck is President of Herschel Shosteck Associates, a Washington based public survey firm, and he has consulted on political campaigns during the last six years. What kind of polls do you take, Mr. Shosteck?

I undertake a large number of public opinion polls focusing on issues and mass media analysis, radio and television programming.

Do you take candidate preference polls?

Yes, I do.

Do you publish them? Are they published?

No, they are not published.

Do you believe that such polls should be published?

No, I do not think they should be published; indeed, I think it's a disservice to the electorate to publish them.

Why is that?

Well, for three reasons. First, they tend to be inaccurate. Secondly, they tend to be misrepresented. And, thirdly, and most importantly, they diffuse the debate from the basic issues to this horse race kind of phenomenon, who's ahead in the polls.

Now, the old Literary Digest polls . . .

Excuse me just a second. Mr. Shosteck, when you take these preference polls, who do you take them for? Are you working for somebody?

I take them for individual candidates.

They are not published in the media.

They are not published in the media. I recommend that they not be published in the media.

Are most of the questions you ask, “who’s ahead?"

No, we look fundamentally at issues. What are the basic issues. The public knows what the issues are. You ask them, they'll tell you. And the candidate is the one who has to be educated.

Now, I thought the Literary Digest poll in the Landon days was inaccurate. But aren't polls accurate today?

Some are. The major polls by Harris and Gallup are fairly accurate. But during an election year, these are not the major polls that are published. The major polls that are published are the straw polls by the newspapers, publishers who have very little competence in the polling field, who don't know what they are doing, who are interested primarily in getting a dramatic headline, and, as such, could care less what the polls are really saying.

You think a large number of newspaper polls are inaccurate.

Very much so.

And even the accurate ones, you say, are misunderstood?

Yes. The polling process, the electoral process is an information process. The public is trying to get information about the candidate. They're educating themselves. And to ask them what they think about a candidate, where a candidate stands, before this education process is completed, before election day, is the same as asking a jury to come in with a decision before they've heard a trial. They're not in position to do that yet, and they know it, and they don't want to.

Besides being misunderstood and some inaccurate, you said they distorted the public debate.

A very brief answer, please, Mr. Shosteck.

Very much so. Basically, they focus away from the fundamentals of any campaign, and that is who is running and what are their capabilities and what are the basic issues.

All right, gentlemen, let me interrupt, and let's go to Mr. Miller who's now going to ask you some questions in cross-examination.

Mr. Shosteck, you say the major polls, such as Gallup and Harris, are generally accurate. Aren't those the very polls which the major media then would not publish? That is, all we'd have are these other polls. We'd have no Gallup or Harris poll in national media or magazines.

I don't understand your question.

Well, let me put it another way. There will still be polls taken, won't there?

That's correct.

Labor unions will take polls.

Possibly.

Businessmen will take polls.

Possibly.

Of course, they will. I mean people who contribute to the campaigns are still going to take polls.

Yes.

And so we're going to have all of these private polls floating around. Suppose, for example, labor unions say to their members, "We've taken a poll. I'm not going to tell you what it is, but we've taken it. And our poll shows us that Candidate X is leading." Now, a business group takes another poll that says Candidate Y. What you've done is prevented the media from publishing the only genuinely accurate source, haven't you?

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't publish the polls because they divert from the basic issues. The basic issue is what are the issues and what are the capabilities of the campaigns.

No, but they'll still be taken, and presumably they'll be available to people who want to purchase them. If you want to subscribe to a pollster's newsletter, you'll subscribe and get the polling information.

Correct.

So the net result is that only those who can afford it will have the privilege of being misinformed.

That's incorrect. That's entirely incorrect. The people who hire my services or hire Mr. Field's services or hire Gallup’s services are those who are interested primarily in organizing their campaign in a prudent manner. And the outcome of this is that they are very much aware of their need to know what the public opinion is, what the voter's opinion is, on the basic issues of their district.

But doesn't this proposal go opposite to a major thrust in American society; that is, today, when we talk about information that Presidents have or people making decisions have, we want more disclosure. If a President, like President Johnson, is going to make decisions based on the Vietnam War on a poll, we'd like to know how good that poll is. If a candidate is going to key his campaign to certain issues, we want more disclosure, not less, don't we?

I think disclosure is very fine on what the fundamental issues are. Indeed, that is something I am very much in favor of. What I am against and what I feel is a disservice to the public is the irresponsibility of publishers in focusing entirely on these horse races which are, in many cases if not most cases, distortion; and in so doing, they are taking away from the basic issues; they are not focusing on the basic issues,

But do you assume that there will be these other polls. They'll constantly be in circulation, and therein simply be rumor, innuendo, and no source to check them out.

Well, Mr. Miller, let's distinguish between polls on issues, which, I take it, . . .

No, I'm talking about polls on candidates. I'm talking about . . .

You're suggesting that some people commission private horse race polls, if you will, . . .

Well, of course, they will.

…and it's those that will be floating around. Let's keep our discussion on that.

Major campaign contributors ...

In point of fact, my experience has been that they don't. They are far more interested in what the issues are, and this, I think, is very laudable.

They don't, and they won't?

My personal experience and that of my colleagues with whom I have discussed this is that the least important part of any private poll is the horse race part of it, particularly when you get into a campaign. Now, that doesn't ...

And candidates do not leak their horse race polls to the press and attempt to get them published?

A lot of them do leak them.

Yes.

And I think that, one, they're ill-advised because I think it has a negative effect. Secondly, more importantly, I think that it is again diffusing the proper focus of a campaign away from the competence of the candidate and the basic underlying issues, so the public focuses on this horse race.

You think before there were polls, people didn't focus on the candidates and the horse race.

What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the publishers are little more than pimps for the pollsters who are for . . .

That says something about the pollsters that may not be very nice.

It says something about the publishers also. They are focusing away from the basic issues. They have trivial statistics, and by focusing on these trivial statistics, they are abdicating their journalistic responsibilities to educate the public, and I think they are cheating the American people in so doing.

Well, let me ask you this. Do you support tonight's proposal?

I think that the horse race type poll, in which you have Candidate A as two points ahead of Candidate B and Candidate B as three points behind Candidate C, is an insult to the American people. I think the American voters deserve more than that. I think that the publishers are cheating them. And I think that the polls should not be published. I think that the publishers should voluntarily refrain from this and go on about the business of journalism which is to educate and to inform the public...

Educate and inform the public by your standards of what education and information is to . . .

…on meaningful topics.

Mr. Miller, I'm going to let you follow up on this question in just a moment, but I want to go back to Mr. Fisher for just one last question, Mr. Fisher.

Well, basically your notion is that the basic facts of publishing these figures contributes no benefit and does have this diversionary . . .

Well, it not only has no benefit but it's divisive. Not only does it focus away from the issues, it can be used to subvert the democratic process because early in the game, if a candidate will leak a poll and his poll is structured either honestly or fraudulently to show that he's ahead and the other candidate's behind; in a primary election, the effect of this is to dry up campaign funds. And by so doing, this means that the candidate at the disadvantage cannot get money, he cannot communicate with the people, he cannot present his capabilities, he cannot present his stance on the issue, and this is, I submit, a subversion of the democratic process.

All right, Mr. Shosteck, Mr. Miller was waving a piece of paper. I don't know if he's going to continue to wave it . . .

Well, you think that not only the ordinary voter but the person who contributes major sums of money to political candidates in the neighborhood of 10, 50, or 100 thousand dollars simply is too naive to understand what a poll really means.

Polls are very technical; and in many cases he's too naive, and in many cases he's sold a faulty bill of goods.

Mr. Miller, no more questions. Mr. Shosteck, it's been a pleasure to have you on The Advocates.

Thank you.

Thank you very, very much. All right, Mr. Fisher.

To testify from his own experience on the harmful effects which polls can have on a campaign, I call on Congressman William Green.

Welcome to The Advocates, Congressman Green.

Congressman Green has conducted six successful Congressional campaigns and one unsuccessful campaign to be Mayor of Philadelphia last year. Now that you've had seven campaigns, Mr. Green, in your judgment, does the publication of horse race head-to-head polls help the campaign?

I don't think it contributes a thing to the democratic process, no. And I think it's harmful, as a matter of fact.

What happened in your Philadelphia race?

Well, I ran last year for Mayor of the city of Philadelphia; and shortly before the end of that campaign, one of the newspapers published a poll which showed me running a poor third. The fact of the matter was I was running a close second.

What happened after the poll was published?

It had a catastrophic effect, first of all on contributions in the campaign. The situation was such that there were three candidates in the race. Actually there were four. One dropped out and endorsed me. The Governor of the state came into the city and endorsed me, and the campaign was really rolling. And then this poll came out, and the thing that happened, really, was that for the next three or four days virtually nothing was discussed in the campaign except that poll. And in a weekend prior to that we had raised about $40,000 in the campaign, and during that time we didn't raise a dime.

Now, you say the poll was inaccurate. How do you know it was inaccurate?

It was inaccurate because the Philadelphia Daily News that published the poll, after four days of examination, research, study calling pollsters around the country to test the sample they had taken, printed the entire front page to apologize to my campaign.

Full front page apology for an inaccurate poll.

That's right.

Did that pick up the morale of your staff and put you back in the...

It put us back in the ballgame, yes.

Would an accurate poll 10 days earlier base made a difference?

I tend to think it would have had a profound effect upon the money raising in the campaign and had a profound effect upon a discussion of the issues, which I consider to be the most basic thing.

Did the publication there and in other cases divert the public from discussing the merits of the candidates?

I would say the top line on the media, radio and television programs and newspapers, was that inaccurate poll for several days.

Does the publication of such polls, head-to-head polls do anyone any good?

I suspect it does a great deal of good just for the newspaper that published it and perhaps for the bookies or betters.

Thank you.

All right, Congressman, let's turn to Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, some questions.

I'm glad you ended on the note of bookies or betters, Congressman, because before we had polls, we still had estimates of who was going to win. Let me read you a headline from the November 1, 1920, New York Times, the Harding-Cox election. Headline reads, "Harding odds still six to one. Even money bet that he will carry New York by 300,000." Do you prefer Jimmy the Greek to Gallup in formulating these…

No, I don't. In fact, I think that people before these polls . . .

Congressman, I'm going to claim a point of personal privilege, if we have any more references to my ethnic ancestors.

Obviously, he had to be Greek. The fact of the matter is that these polls are published today as if they were scientific and under that label. You know, the contest you referred to or Jimmy the Greek's figures are considered sort of an off-the-cuff, almost comic prediction.

Let me ask you what your standards are for freedom of the press. Now, it's not only polls, for a moment focusing on the inaccurate polls. There may be inaccurate crime reporting because some crimes are inaccurately reported…

Well, I tell you, as a matter of fact, I…

Let me finish the question. Should papers publish no crime news?

Well, first of all, I'm the first Congressman in the country to introduce a bill to provide for a national criminal statistics center because I think that the way we record statistics is very inaccurate. And I don't see what bearing that has upon elections. It may do something for the crime problem. Secondly, let me say that I do not advocate, nor do I think anyone should advocate, a law to outlaw polls being published. But I feel that the democratic process is best served is we concentrate on the real issues in the campaign, be they drugs or gangs or crime or whatever, rather than having three or four days of a campaign headlined as to who's going to win or not win. That's a decision for the people. And the real poll, the poll of the people, will be the one that decides.

Well, now there's no question but that the democratic process is best served by focusing on the real issues. Sometimes there are real issues for polls. In primary campaigns, for example, the Democratic Party will have to choose a Democratic nominee in 1976. Isn't it helpful to the average voter, not the one who can pay $25 a month for a voting service, but to the average voter to know which of the candidates of the Democratic Party may be more popular and be able to win?

I don't think that that's particularly helpful, and I think that's one of the tragedies, both in fund raising. The people have a tendency to look to see who it happens to be that is most popular rather than whom, in justice and in right and what's good and everything else, they believe in.

People who contribute funds will still have these polls. They don't have to appear in the New York Times for them to have polls.

I'm not so sure of that. That's not my experience.

Let's take it this way. What else should newspapers not publish? You say you don't want them barred from publishing this information. Should they not publish foreign affairs articles because they're complicated and misleading?

I don't think that there is anything that newspapers should be prohibited from publishing. I think that they do, in many instances, exercise a great deal of self-restraint.

Well, what is your position on tonight's proposal now. Your position is newspapers should not publish these candidate preference polls.

I think they should exercise self-restraint in publishing.

Well, of course, they should exercise self-restraint. They do in all sorts of news.

Well, they don't when they publish polls.

But if they have an accurate poll in the midst of inaccurate information flying around from everyone else's poll, a newspaper has an accurate poll that it's checked out that meets its standards, it shouldn't publish that poll?

The fact of the matter is that they don't check them out. And I'm a perfect case...

Answer the question. Answer the question, now.

I thought I did.

No, you didn't. A newspaper has an accurate poll. There's all sorts of misinformation fly . . .

Well, who determines whether or not the poll is accurate?

It meets the methodological standards, it's scientific, you've got the right sample…

The Philadelphia Daily News thought they had that.

No, well, you see, I want the question answered. In the midst of misinformation, a newspaper is satisfied that the poll it has, not Jimmy the Greek odds and not a candidate's leak, a poll . . .

The Daily News was satisfied that its poll was accurate. Now, let's presume for the moment that their poll was accurate.

Yes, and you would still prohibit them from publishing it?

I wouldn't prohibit anybody from publishing anything.

Would you still have them not publish it?

I would think that it would serve the best interest of discussion of the real issues, if they left the horse race aspects out of it and dealt with drugs, crime, gangs, education, housing, and...

Now, just a moment. There are all these things all over the place. Labor union leaders are telling their members someone is ahead, and that's an issue in the campaign.

Well, I'm not sure that that's the case at all. I don't agree with that assumption. I heard that line of questioning earlier, and I don't agree with it.

You don't think other people will take polls.

That's not been my experience in seven campaigns.

There are no private polls now, the Sindlinger Poll or other polls, that people subscribe to?

Oh, sure, there are many private polls.

Of course.

I think people take polls. I've taken polls myself.

Gentlemen, we'll have an opportunity to continue this, but let's go back to Mr. Fisher for a quick question.

Mr. Green, do you think that it's an abridgement of freedom of the press for newspapers not to publish confessions in advance of trials? Mr. Miller's suggestion that if a newspaper doesn't publish a category of things, this somehow abridges the freedom of press. I take it that most newspapers, exercising responsibility, do not publish confessions, purported confessions of defendants, even though they think they're honest.

Well, newspapers don't publish a great many things that are sometimes kicked around in. a campaign which, perhaps, don't belong in it, the private lives of candidates and things like that. The only suggestion I make tonight is that constant discussion or headline discussion of who's where in the campaign and who stands where in the polls just diverts from the more important discussion that both the people and the newspaper should be concerned with, and that's the issues of the campaign.

Mr. Miller said . . .

No, Mr. Fisher, I'm not going to let you ask another one because Mr. Miller…

Of course, we're not talking about self-restraint in their private lives, we're talking about self-restraint in their public standing. And since public standing is an issue that people look to, who to give money to, why shouldn't the average voter have the information that the wealthy contributor can get by paying for it?

Well, first of all, I don't know that the wealthy contributor has any advantage over the average voter in that situation. You kept talking about labor unions, and you virtually said a minute ago, yourself, you thought everybody took polls. I don't agree with that. The question is should our newspapers or our television stations or our radio stations, which are a fundamental source of the information that the voter receives, be the conduit for this guestimate, this projection.

No, the question is should they publish no polls. Your position is, in exercise of self-restraint they should publish no polls.

My position is that the public interest would be best served if they devoted as much space as possible to the discussion of the real issues.

Well, what is your position on this question, though? Do you think polls are so harmful they should never publish them? That's the question we're talking about, whether this is such an enormous evil that people don't have a right to hear or see an accurate poll ...

First of all, I don't interpret that to be the question. I interpret the question to be whether or not they should publish them. And I think they shouldn't. I did not say that I thought they were absolutely eating away at the roots of our democracy.

All right, on that note, gentlemen, I'll have to excuse Congressman Green. Thank you very much, Congressman, for being with us. Mr. Fisher.

Let me remind you, in case Mr. Miller is misleading you, no one is talking about prohibiting anything. We are suggesting that the mass media, like television and radio and mass newspapers, refrain from publishing a particular kind of horse race poll which is, "If the vote were taken today, who would you vote for?" because this is usually interpreted as who is ahead without the subtlety and background of changes in position and what they are. To tell us that democracy can survive very nicely without publishing head-to-head polls, I call on Mr. David Anderson from Victoria, British Columbia.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Anderson. It's nice to have you with us.

Mr. Anderson is the leader of the Liberal Party in the province of British Columbia and a member of the legislature. He is a former member of the Parliament in Ottawa. Now, did newspapers and radio use to publish candidate preference polls in British Columbia?

Yes, they did.

And how were things then in British Columbia?

Well, they were much as they are elsewhere. This is prior to '53, they were published in the normal sense, and people decided that it put too much emphasis on the horse race, who was ahead, and not enough on Issues, so the legislature, in 1953 passed an amendment to the election act and prohibited polls during the electoral period, which is the 38 days immediately prior to the election.

They are prohibited during the campaign, which, in Canada, runs five weeks and a little bit . . .

Provincially, it runs five weeks in British Columbia.

How are things in the Province now in provincial elections?

Well, it's hypothetical. We're dealing with the situation now as opposed to the situation prior to '53 But in my view, there is more emphasis upon issues, more emphasis upon what I think should be the real questions facing electorates, and less upon the who's ahead today, the discussion of why so-and-so's ahead in terms of the day to day influence upon the electorate of media and other things advertising and other things . . .

Do the people still have an interest in the horse race aspects?

Oh, heavens, yes. By golly. We have, by the way, in the federal elections, we have the horse race element there, and we have polls taken. But there is one thing that shows, I guess, that they are interested. We have a poll fair every year in British Columbia, and it often coincides with the provincial election, and there is a gentleman, very enterprising hamburger salesman, who sells hamburgers with the names of the party leaders. And this is legal. There are Andersonburgers. There are . . .

Congratulations.

I didn't do very well. In any event . . .

Are the results of hamburger sales published in the press?

Yes, they are, and this is considered to be legal because they are not testing their political preference. They are simply saying what hamburger would you like to buy. The hamburgers happen to be identical. I think the man could be charged, but I'm not sure about it.

Nobody's prosecuted him yet, I take it.

Not yet.

Nobody's prosecuted him, but would it be better if the press refrained from publishing those crazy figures?

Well, fortunately, and this is where we get back to the question of the private polls, fortunately, it's considered to be inaccurate. It doesn't have the backup of the scientific polling system behind it. It doesn't give the impression of being the gospel truth. It's just simply John Dice (?) and his hamburgers down there at the P and E.

Now, in Canada in the federal elections, polls are permitted and published.

They are, right.

And you, in British Columbia, have had a chance to compare your last August election with this October election.

Right. We had a provincial election on the 30th of August, the federal election on the 30th of October.

And which practice do you think is better?

I prefer the provincial. I think that the federal election showed that the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau, was ahead for a good part of the time; indeed, he wound up ahead in the end. But, the publishing of polls led to the horse race effect, not enough emphasis upon issues, and indeed it also, in my mind, led people to simply not bother to vote on the grounds that it was a foregone conclusion.

Thank you.

All right, gentlemen, let's turn to Mr. Miller. Bear in mind, Mr. Miller, that in that hamburger poll, fish eaters are, quite obviously, excluded.

I was going to say I thought the hamburger poll tested the voter's gut reaction to the election.

That's probably an irrational way to test their reaction.

Yes, well, fortunately the polls that we have today, as opposed to the ones that were around in ‘53 are more accurate than simply testing that reaction.

I should say you can cook the results. There were a good number of hamburgers purchased for committee rooms in the last days of that poll.

Now, let's do what Mr. Fisher likes and switch to the issue here. Tell me about the British Columbia statute. It's not only head-to-head candidate polls that are prohibited. In fact, candidates are prohibited from taking any poll, even from finding out what their electorate may think on an issue.

Well, the law has not been tested. In actual fact people do. It's interpreted to be what party would you vote for or how would you vote.

Well now, it says that no person shall take votes which will prior to the election distinguish the political opinions of the voters in any election.

Yes, but, in other words, it's quite possible to say, "Are you concerned about crime in the street?" and if the reply is, yes, of course that could be published.

That's OK. Are you concerned about crime in the street?" And which candidate most people think take a position on crime in the street, that is not a…

Well, not if it's interpreted in terms of how would you vote were the election tomorrow.

Let me ask you if you've had this problem in British Columbia because there are other countries that have tried this. The Germans, of course, tried once to ban polls in the late 1960's in one of their federal elections. What they found was that out-of-country newspapers, the London Times took a poll that was widely distributed inside Germany. Has anything like that happened in British Columbia?

No. This is entirely for provincial elections, and there may have been some Eastern Canadian papers that tried to do this, but I'm not aware of it if there are.

And suppose there were polls taken. Are you recommending this British Columbia system for the United States?

No, I'm not. Your system is different from ours. Your Constitution is different from ours. We do have a legislative prohibition against polling. We are here discussing whether editors…

Are you recommending that, that editors ought not publish any polls at all?

Well, my view is that it would be helpful during the five weeks prior to the election.

Well, during the five weeks. Of course, that's one major difference, not only size and habit, but one presidential candidate announced 22 months before the election.

Gentlemen, we're getting close to time. Would you recommend this policy, do you think, for most states and provinces?

I think you can set up a reasonable length of time without any trouble, and I think that it would be helpful to focus attention on issues.

In other words, it's OK to find out at a certain time but not at a later time?

When the election draws into that last two months, I think you should . . .

All right, Mr. Anderson . . .

Thank you.

. . . thanks for coming all the way from British Columbia to be with us. Thank you. All right, Mr.- Fisher.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. The issue is one of the benefits of a particular kind of poll, the kind which shows the horse race figures. Most pollsters spend most of their time on gathering other information, and editors have great restraint in publishing other types of information. It's a narrow question. Do not let Mr. Miller deceive you into thinking we're passing a law to prohibit studying the state electorate or what's on their minds. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. We’ve now reached the midway point in our program, and for those of you who may have joined us late, Mr. Fisher has argued that the democratic process would be improved if newspapers and magazines, radio and television, would refrain from publishing candidate preference polls. Now, it's Mr. Miller's turn, and Mr. Miller, you're on.

We're not publishing a law, but we are saying that because polls are too complicated or because someone thinks they don't state the real issue they ought not to be published. That's the approach of dealing with complexity, with complicated issues - by secrecy. It's a fundamentally elitist view, which concept tells us that not only the average voter but also the substantial contributor simply can't be trusted to deal with this information; and therefore that we must protect people from information. I categorically reject that view.

Of course, polls are complicated. So are many other things we deal with. Taxes are complicated. Defense is complicated. Education is complicated. There's misreporting on all of those things, difficult things to understand, inaccuracies. Does that mean that newspapers should publish nothing that falls in an area where there may be some inaccuracy or some misleading things? Of course, not.

Now, there are disappointments with elections. But that disappointment and the disappointment with the polls cannot be elevated to this policy because the problem is that the mind that thinks this is too difficult or that makes the judgment that it's simply not relevant will also think that other things are too difficult or are not relevant. The spirit that is afraid of the public having this information will be afraid of the public having other information that someone decides. The instinct that calls for a suppression of information that people want and that will be around in other forms is basically the instinct that distrusts democracy -and your ability to decide.

In the end, as we began, the surest way to deal with any problem is not through this kind of calculated ignorance but through openness and candor that will keep us free. To talk to us about why we need that openness and candor in polling as elsewhere, we have with us tonight one of the nation's most respected pollsters, Mr. Mervin Field.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Field. It's nice to have you with us.

Mr. Field is the founder and director of the highly respected California Poll. Tell me, Mr. Field, what happened before polls? Were people not interested in which candidate was going to win?

No, I think you have to go back 25 centuries. It was the Greeks who decided to start things by balloting. I think when that first election was scheduled in Athens, maybe 2500 years ago, that somebody wanted to find out how the campaign was going. And I'm sure that the Delphic oracle at that time had a lot of requests.

Well, tell me, Mr. Field, do you simply make polls for the media, or, in fact, are most polls made even on candidates and elections for private and other sources?

No, our California Poll is supported by media. It's a syndicated service. We do not work for candidates whose races we are covering in the California Poll.

And what would happen if the media could not publish a highly respected poll like yours or Mr. Gallup's or Mr. Harris'? Would other people take polls just the same?

Most certainly.

And what would happen to those polls? They'd be talked about . . .

What would happen? They'd be talked about, and they would be given more credence than, I think, the published polls because the public has come to accept published polls. They're part of the process, and when they create a vacuum, I think the unstructured, the unsupported, the unsystematic poll then gets more credence than it should. And one of the problems in polling is to get more and more disclosure. There's no mystery in polling. It's a very simple process. There are tens of thousands of people who are now coming out of school who know how to take polls, and it's nothing mysterious at all. It's just a very systematic way of going about measuring public opinion.

Now, we've heard a lot of talk about polls being inaccurate. But, in fact, how does the well run poll do it? Is that more accurate or less accurate than odds or random rumor?

Well, there's always a problem in trying to assess accuracy. When we talk about accuracy, all that we can say is that if we take a poll as a measurement at one point in time and we go through a certain system, the kind of system that other professional people can replicate by going through it, then we feel that we have an accurate poll. One of the misconceptions about polls is that people believe, and this is a widespread belief, that a poll taken at one point in time, no matter whether it's one week, one month, one year before, is an automatic forecast of how elections are going to turn out. And what they fail to see is that there's always a lot of interventions. The campaign is going on. The candidates are trying to sway public opinion. Their campaign managers are turning out the right voters and avoiding so-called wrong voters. New events come in. A campaign is a very dynamic process.

And do you think the concept of a poll and what it measures and what it's good for and what it's not good for when it's well done is simply too difficult a concept for the person reading a newspaper to grab?

fro. This is the kind of information they want, and what we have found is that there is one segment of the public that is concerned about issues, but a large majority of the public are interested in personalities. And whether you agree with it or not, we are a nation of score keepers. People want to know who's ahead. And the reason they want to know who's ahead, not so much to bet or to satisfy their own perception, but rather to see is my view of that candidate shared by other people. Now, 100 years ago, when we all lived in communities where we could go to our neighbors or go to our ward boss, we could get some reaffirmation of that. But now, we are a very mobile society. We need some idea, some reaffirmation, do other people perceive the candidate the way I feel. And so, when they these poll reports and they see them change, they are getting a measure of public opinion research in action, public opinion research which has value in many other ways other than candidate polls.

All right, gentlemen, let's turn to Mr. Fisher, who has got some questions for you now, Mr. Field.

Thank you. Mr. Field, let's see if we can narrow the area of disagreement. You agree that there are problems about publishing polls.

Problems in what way?

Impact on the electoral process. For example, that they make it more difficult for a new politician to get into the race.

I don't think so. There are some politicians who think that it might be difficult.

Suppose I read to you the sentence, "There is demonstrable validity to the charge that polls limit the opportunity of comparative newcomers to the political field." Would you recognize what you wrote?

That's a statement I made some time ago, yes.

Would you agree with this statement you made?

Now it's less viable. We've had many newcomers who were behind in the polls, have found new ways to finance campaigns.

How long ago did you write this statement?

I think I first wrote it in '52 or '54.

Most recently wrote it this year?

I don't recall. I may have repeated it.

Do you agree that polls often cut off campaign contributions to a candidate - publishing a poll - as we've heard from Mr. Green.

What they cut off are the money from the fat cats, the people who are self-appointed financial people for candidates, and what we have now demonstrated, particularly in the Senator McGovern campaign, new ways of financing. Senator McGovern probably was hurt by the polls, but he was able to organize campaign financing. His campaign ended in the black. They had a target of $25 million and were able to raise it exclusive of the traditional fat cat contributors.

They raised less than half or about half as much as the Republican campaign?

Their target was $25 million.

Oh, knowing what the polls were, they may have had a realistic target. You do agree that it does tend to cut off the money, though, for whatever reason, and that does limit a candidate's ability.

It cuts it off to the ignorant financial people who do not know how to read polls, the unsophisticated people.

Do you think the public are likely to misunderstand candidate preference polls during the last part of the campaign?

Some may misunderstand.

You think some may. Would you recognize the statement that "in recent years, nearly all responsible opinion polling organizations have tried to emphasize that their political polls are not predictions. Despite these efforts, nearly everybody (may I repeat that, nearly everybody), and that includes pollsters themselves, in unguarded moments, view a late opinion poll as a forecast of events to come." Do you agree that most people misread the polls?

That's my statement.

You agree they misunderstand the polls.

No, I don't. No, I . . .

You state that most people construe a late poll in the campaign as a prediction, and that is not the fact, and you say they misunderstand it. Do I understand you correctly?

Well, let's let him finish his answer, if we might, Mr. Fisher.

I say there is widespread misunderstanding of what a poll does, and all segments of the public, general public, politicians, lawyers . . .

Misunderstand.

Yeah, misunderstand.

I agree. Wide misunderstanding of what that kind of poll does.

Yes.

Now, what proportion of all polls that are broadcast on radio or TV or published in newspapers would you say are vouched for by reputable professional organizations, professionals, and are described in enough detail to permit them to assess the validity. What proportion of published polls are reputable and described in enough detail to permit an assessment of their validity.

I think as a result of my activities and activities of other people in a professional society that now the Harris Poll, the Gallup Poll, the California Poll, the Minnesota Poll, the Iowa Poll, and I'd say all the public polls that have had a demonstrated reputation, who have been continuously polling now do disclose ...

What percent of the newspaper polls, television polls, or company…When you give a report . . .

Mr. Fisher, hold on just a second. Do you have an opinion as to…

Yes, the majority of the polls now do disclose.

Now, do disclose. When you issue a poll to one of your subscribers, one of your media, you attach an explanation to that poll, to each sheet of that poll or each report, which includes a vast amount of data.

Yes.

And you do that why?

Because we want to disclose. We want the public to understand. We want the media to understand just what's in the polls.

And do the media attach such a report to each TV announcement?

They do. They do describe the sample size. They do describe how the poll was taken.

All the things that you suggest ought to be included?

This and . . .

I heard 39 minutes of the Today show on election morning. I don't believe I heard a single reference to sample size or method of polling. I just heard overwhelming…

I didn't hear the show. I didn't hear the show. I might also say that we deposit all our polling data at two repositories, all our poll data, so that anybody can get access to questionnaires, IBM cards, full access to it, and there is now an increased understanding of polls just by those efforts.

I agree with you that your polling is fine. What I'm concerned is what the media do to your polls after they are published because . . .

Gentlemen, you're going to have an opportunity to explore that at a little greater length. Let's go back to Mr. Miller for an additional question. Mr. Miller.

Mr. Field, I suppose the question is whether the public would have more information and be better off if the highly respected polls were no longer published by the major media. What would be the state of affairs if they were not? Would there be more or less misunderstanding?

I think there would be more misunderstanding. I think if you denied the public the polls that had acceptance, the bad polls would drive out the good polls. And if you drive out the good polls, they're just going to be supplanted by bad polls.

All right, let's go back to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher.

You've suggested that the best guarantee against abuse is for self-restraint on the part of editors, and editors not to publish any polls that are not vouched for by a reputable professional, and not described in enough detail to permit one to assess their validity. Now, if they shouldn't publish those polls, should the viewer on TV, can he judge the Philadelphia Poll?

What's the Philadelphia Poll?

You suggested . . .

The poll that Congressman Green referred to.

There was a newspaper poll that came out that was all over the front page . . .

You see, the California Poll, the Gallup Poll, the Harris Poll are reliable professional polls. Anybody that wants to have access to how they took the sample, to examine sample size, sampling error, tabulation schemes, can do that. They are vouched for because they've been in business and they have acceptance.

How does your publication of that data improve the selection of the quality of the candidates we have in public office.

Because the public wants to know how the candidate is faring. He wants to see how the candidate manages his campaign in success and adversity. And that's how it improves it, because most people do not vote according to issues, they vote according to personality, and they want to see this personality react to good news and to bad news.

Gentlemen, I have to interrupt at this point. I'm sorry, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Field, thanks very much for being with us on The Advocates.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Miller, go ahead.

Not only does tonight's proposal drive out the good polls for the bad but it also, of course, violates our fundamental ideas of freedom of speech. To talk to us about that, I've asked to join us tonight Senator Charles Goodell.

Welcome to The Advocates, Senator Goodell. It's nice to have you with us.

Senator, you had an unhappy experience with polls in the 1970 Senate race, didn't you?

Yes, my experience, I think, was very much like the one that Bill Green described earlier. I was reported as running third in a three-way contest. It did have some adverse effect, I think, upon my campaign. It's questionable exactly what the impact was. There were many other things involved in the campaign. But I certainly feel that the public had a right to know what the situation was. In fact, I think they even have a greater right when there's a three-way candidacy for one office. If the Number One candidate in the polls is someone that the people who are favoring Number Three don't like, they ought to switch to Number Two if they feel that way.

Let me ask you what is the fundamental question in tonight's discussion. I suppose the same litany could have been made about all sorts of information, that people may misunderstand and that some of it may be inaccurate, as has been made tonight. The question is do we deal with those problems by newspapers suppressing that information and not publishing it.

Well, I certainly think that if you start saying that people don't understand polls because they're too complicated you are opening up to some very dangerous things. I do not think that the press should try to restrain the public from having information that they think is controversial or complex. If the press wishes to print a poll and they think it's inaccurate, I think they can put in an evaluation themselves. They can talk about it in the editorial columns. I think others can do that. If you exclude the press from publishing particularly the reputable polls that are approved by the professional standards, you're going to have a lot of garbage. Candidates are going to be going out handing out pamphlets of their own polls. They'd be totally unreliable.

Well, let me ask you, on many polls, should we perhaps take a totally contrary approach; that is, men in public office, the President, men in the Senate, use polls without disclosing how the poll was made. They use it to frame their own judgments about candidates and issues, politics by secrecy. In fact, instead of preventing publication, shouldn't we require publication of polls that are used to make judgments about candidates or other things.

Yes, I believe that. There have been many instances where public officials have claimed that they were taking a given position on an issue because their polls indicated that's what the American people wanted, or the people of their district wanted. When any reference of that nature is made, I think they should come forward and give the full information about how that poll was taken. Congressmen are well known, for instance, in saying that I sent out my newsletters, and these are the polls I got. Well, of course, they have a very limited number of people receiving that newsletter.

You've been in the Senate, you've been in the Congress, you've wrestled with this issue, you've been hurt by a poll, you've seen good polls and bad polls, Do we deal with this problem of complexity, of complicated information, of some misunderstanding, do we deal with it by cutting it off? Or do we get more education, more learning, more knowledge?

Well, having been hurt by publication of polls, according to a number of people, at least, I must say that I think the people in New York State had a right to information about where the various candidates stood in that particular campaign. I happen to believe that the particular straw vote involved was not accurate. There were other polls available that were accurate and should have been published along with the Daily News straw vote, and I think the people have a right to know it even if it's inaccurate.

Of course, the essence of the free speech value, which we so often forget, is that everyone can be in favor of accurate information, but what do we also have to defend -the right to publish . . .

One of the great arguments in any election campaign is the whole issue of what is accurate.

Tell me, Senator Goodell, in terms of more information, what kind of more information would you require. You'd want people to know what about polls in order to evaluate them.

Well, the pollsters have worked out the standards for professional polls that are considered to be reliable. They involve the training of the individuals who are asking the questions, the choice of the sampling, the size of the sampling, the time of the sampling, a whole variety of things of that nature. If that kind of information is given, people can perhaps begin to evaluate polls better. I think the answer is to educate them on how to evaluate them.

And is there any virtue . . .

Gentlemen, I'm going to have to break in. I'm sorry, Mr. Miller, but we'll get back to you. Senator Goodell, Mr. Fisher has got some questions for you.

Senator Goodell, do you agree that, the publication of polls causes some harm and may do some benefit, we're weighing that? Do you agree that publishing a head-to-head may cause harm?

I agree that publishing almost any information can cause harm.

And you went so far as to draft legislation proposing the prohibition on publishing head-to-head candidate polls during a certain period before the campaign. You considered such legislation, did you not?

I considered it and rejected it. My proposal was that they be required to give the full information on how the poll was taken, so the people could evaluate it.

At the time, you told in testimony why you rejected the proposal. Do you remember the reasons you gave why you rejected it?

I rejected it for a variety of reasons, including that I didn't think it was constitutional..

That was the first reason you gave, that it was not constitutional to pass a law prohibiting it, and I agree with you on that. I'm not disagreeing at all. The second one was you thought the voter had a right to vote, irrationally, if he wanted to, on the data that might be there. Do you believe that voters ought to vote on the basis of polls as to who's ahead or who's behind?

I, personally, would hope that under normal circumstances they would not. In every campaign I've run, I've spent the time telling people the issues that I think they ought to consider important, and I would tell them that I don't think polls are important in most cases. However, I think if they disbelieve me and they think an issue is very important, they should have that information to vote on.

If you were an editor, and you thought that to publish polls was going to divert the campaign from the issues and was going to cause voters to vote irrationally, would you publish such figures?

Yes. I don't think I would feel that I was in a position to make a judgment about whether people were going to vote irrationally on the basis of information that I had given them.

You have $5000, Senator Goodell, to spend on a particular campaign, on a reporter to go in. Will you commission someone to go out and create some news by asking people questions which will be news when they answer it, or would you try to commission someone to write a piece about the issues? This is an allocation of resources as to whether that last $5000 is better spent helping the public understand the candidates or is it better spent by the media producing figures that will lead to irrational votes, that you and I both consider irrational.

I think that's an irrational choice. I don't think it's a choice that's normally made by a newspaper. . .

A TV station has two minutes to discuss something. They can discuss substantive question; they can discuss the latest head-to-head poll. Which would you, as a producer or editor of a television program, put on?

I would want them to discuss the issue, but I certainly wouldn't come down on either side to say that they cannot discuss the issue or the information about the issue or the poll. . .

No one . . .

Let's let him finish. Let's let him finish.

I certainly wouldn't tell them they shouldn't publish information about a poll that people are interested in.

No one here has suggested that they be prohibited or barred. . .

I apologize. I would not suggest that you were saying that. . .

We are suggesting that editors exercise their responsibility. Now, suppose an editor found that his readers would be fascinated by a survey of the private sex lives of public officials. Would you think that a responsibly journalist might decide, as most newspapers have, that, despite the interest in reading about the sex lives of candidates, they will refrain from commissioning investigators to gather that information?

I don't think it's a responsible question. I think basically the responsible issues . . .

The freedom of information?

Let him finish, Mr. Fisher. Go ahead, Senator.

…the responsible issues should be published. I think the people should have them, the information about them. I don't think that we should ask newspapers to restrain from publishing any information they think is important to the judgment of people. . .

We are giving . . .

It's quite possible, as a matter of fact, given your question, that people would be very interested in the sex life of the individual.

I take that by hypothesis, and I say that I believe that the media. The question is responsible. I think a responsible editor, wisely restrains from commissioning studies of the sex habits, and I think a wise editor would refrain from commissioning this particular kind of poll because in each case it would divert the attention. Would you commission either poll?

Well, those of us who are in public life certainly approve of your position, I think. We would prefer that they not do that. And I think there is some question of privacy in public officials’ lives. And I would not commission a poll on the sex life of a man in public life.

Even though it's of interest, even though a lot of voters would like to do it, you would not regard that as infringement of the freedom of press for an editor to' responsibly decide . . .

I would not consider it to be an infringement of the freedom of press even if you restrained them.

Clearly not. Well how about a poll on the innocence or guilt of a man pending trial. Would you think the newspapers ought to publish that?

I don't see that that's related. There, we're protecting the rights of an individual who has not been adjudged guilty yet. In this instance . . .

How about a civil trial?

. . . we're talking about a public election where people need information. The public should not judge the guilt or innocence of a man who's coming to trial. They should judge who is the better candidate running for public office. They should have the information.

The theory in each case is that they should vote on the merits and not how their colleagues think. We don't want the jurors to vote on the public opinion poll on who's going to win a traffic accident. Do you think the election of Congressman or Senator is less important than litigating a civil traffic accident?

Certainly not less important…

…

…but also I must say it's the kind of a situation where it's perfectly proper and relevant for the people to know how the election is going and how other people feel about it.

All right, gentlemen, let's go back to Mr. Miller. One additional question, Mr. Miller.

Well, Senator Goodell, we do not have polls on the sex lives of public officials today, perhaps because of the difficulties of a random sample. We do not have . . .

Somebody out there likes that, Mr. Miller. How about a question?

The question is are we talking about the same problem. For 25 or 30 years now we've had highly respected polls in this area, information the public wants. Does a responsible editor cut off information the public has had, wants, and serves a purpose?

I don't believe it does, and I believe the evidence is that most of the reputable polls now are very accurate as to the situation at the time they're taken. They are reliable information for people to judge by if they wish to use this in their voting patterns. And if you restrained yourself from publishing those good polls, they would be replaced by all sorts of abuses that are not really legitimate polls.

And is there any virtue

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt, Mr. Miller, and the moderator is going to ask a question. Senator, supposing there was some way that we could inform people by two o'clock in the afternoon on election day what the vote was as of that moment so as to help the people who hadn't voted make up their minds, would you favor that kind of procedure and the publication of that information?

It is somewhat a different issue. You're talking about the ability now to put a small amount of information into a computer, perhaps, and predict how the election is going to come out.

I'm saying that at two o'clock in the afternoon, if we could do it, should we publish what the results of the election are at that time for the benefit of the people who haven't voted yet?

I would favor it if it's information that they wish to hear and the people think it's reliable. That's a judgment everyone would . . .

It's certainly a lot more reliable than a poll, isn't it, if we're actually counting . . .

Not necessarily. If you publish at two o'clock in the afternoon when the polls are still open, you're probably doing it on a very small sample from a very few districts.

Senator. .

Mr. Fisher, I'm sorry I can't let you ask another question. I'm sorry I took your question away from you. Senator, thanks very much for begin with us on The Advocates.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Miller, your closing argument, please.

I suppose what we need are men who are intelligent enough to understand the polls and courageous enough to disregard them. What we need, with regard to the polls though, is not less disclosure but more disclosure, not a cutting back of information but a feeding in of more information. Listen to what you've heard tonight, that newspaper editors should not publish legitimate information that people are concerned with because they divert the issues of the campaign. Who decides that the issues of the campaign are diverted? Roger Fisher? Who will decide next week?

You should beware of people who wish to protect you from yourselves, who wish to protect you from gathering information you can't handle. They succeed only too well. In the end, the men who have been redeemed in this area are the men who have trusted and not been suspicious, not the men who have been fearful of information but who have welcomed it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. All right, Mr. Fisher, your closing argument.

The issue is one of self-restraint, not freedom of the press. We're asking that the editors decide what is legitimate and what is not. We're asking that they decide with this as they do today in not publishing the private sex lives of public officials. It's not a question of a poll. It's a question of choosing in your responsible judgment not to publish information which, Mr. Field says, almost everybody misunderstands. They think a poll is a prediction.

What are the benefits we've been offered? Mr. Field says, well they're interested, they like it, it's good entertainment, it competes with entertainment programs, they love it. And he also says that it helps them judge a candidate. They can see how a candidate squirms as the people misinterpret the polls that are published and they can judge his stability. That's some benefit, I suppose. The cost, no one disputes. Senator Goodell has written about the destruction of the debate of the campaign when issues are diverted. It causes people to think about who's ahead and not who will make a good officer. It's exactly the wrong question.

We are not talking about punishing or prohibiting. We are saying that editors here as elsewhere should exercise self-restraint, I hope tonight you'll vote for self-restraint. Thank you.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We've now been debating the question of public opinion polls for almost an hour, and it's time for you here with us in Faneuil Hall in Boston and for those of you at home to let us know how you feel about this issue. Those of you with us in Boston have had ballots distributed to you. Please mark them, indicating your preference and leave them in the ballot boxes which you will find at the door as you leave Faneuil Hall. And for the thousands of you watching on your television sets at home, it's time now for you, too, to get in on the act and let us know how you feel about this issue. Should the news media refuse to publish candidate preference polls? How do you feel? Send us a letter or post card with your yes or no vote and mail it to The Advocates, Box 1972, Boston 02134. What do you think is important? We'll tabulate your votes, and we'll make them known to the members of Congress, to our leaders in government, and to leading newspapers in cities and towns all across the country. So let us know, send us your vote. That address again: The Advocates, Box 1972, Boston 02134.

And now with thanks to our two very able advocates and to their distinguished witnesses and to you, our audience, we conclude tonight's debate.

Next week The Advocates travels to Madison, Wisconsin to join an important symposium on prison reform. Governors, ex-prisoners, and prison wardens will join us then when we debate the question, would we be safer from crime if we closed down most of our prisons.

The Advocates, as a program, takes no position on the issues debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly.

This program was recorded.