Stupid SF Chronicle polls again

OK, I’ve blogged about this before but today’s SF Chronicle poll was one of the worst. Here’s the question and options:

Would you buy a home behind a levee?

a. Yes, floods are just one part of the risk
b. No, New Orleans shows levees inherently unsafe
c. Only with a ton of flood insurance

Yet again, a complete lack of reasonable options. They need to just stop adding the commentary to the options. How about “No our California levees are old and damaged” or “Yes, but only if it is a newer levee or one that has been updated for modern standards” or “Yes, I have confidence in California levees”. And if I pick option ‘a’ in the presented poll am I saying I’m going to buy it without flood insurance because option ‘c’ exists?

Really, there should just be two options: Yes and No. Let the people answering the poll decide what there reasons are. Or if you just insist (and my question is why you insist, but I digress) on having reasons, you’d better have “Yes – for a different reason” and “No – for a different reason” options so that people can answer the poll without being trapped in the limited foresight of the poll asker.

It’s just part of their apparent policy to add their own opinions to just about everything. They can’t even take a poll without introducing their bias.

Comments are closed.