Christopher Charles | Innumerate interpretation of the poll about corruption and public responsibility

THE POLL about corruption has been misinterpreted and publicly circulated, which is nothing new. A Radio Jamaica online story reported that, “57 per cent say they have no opinion on the Integrity Commission; 23 three per cent said they held a positive view of the commission; and 20 per cent reported having a negative view of the anti-corruption watchdog”. Most respondents (57 per cent) did not report an opinion, but it was reported that corruption is unimportant to Jamaicans. Examining the results further indicate that a minority of 20 per cent reported negative views of the Integrity Commission.

With regards to party supporters, “Of those who said they supported the PNP, 28 per cent held a positive view of the commission, while 27 per cent said they viewed the commission in a negative light. Some 45 per cent had no opinion.” Here again, the numbers show that among PNP supporters only a minority of 27 per cent viewed the Integrity Commission negatively. For JLP supporters, “20 per cent had a positive view of the commission, 20 per cent had a negative view and 60 per cent said they had no opinion.” The data shows that even among Government supporters, only a minority (20 per cent) viewed the Integrity Commission negatively. It is also a minority (15 per cent) that hold negative views among uncommitted voters with 21 per cent holding positive views. The views of the majority of 64 per cent were not provided.

MORE CONFUSION

There is more confusion. Some “40 per cent of respondents indicated that recent events have not changed their views on the commission, as opposed to 14 per cent who reported the opposite”, and “46 per cent of respondents reported no effect on their views or said they were not sure”.

It is impossible to make sense of this statement when we don’t know the respondents’ specific views at baseline. In terms of those who reported that recent events had an effect on their views, “22 per cent of people who said they were going to vote for the JLP said they no longer trust the commission and saw them as too compromising,” and “25 per cent of the persons who said they were going to vote for the People’s National Party echoed this view.” Here too, the minority views are presented and used to conclude that corruption is unimportant. We don’t know if “recent events” were specified in the question asked, which assumed that respondents held comparable information about “recent events”. Some people are usually much more informed about events than others.

Don Anderson was quoted, “I think it has to be viewed against the background of the fact that studies that we have done consistently over the last eight years have indicated that corruption, as people in one study said, is a way of life. They’ve taken it for granted. Over 70 per cent made that comment. And therefore ... they’re not overly caught up in what’s happening with the Integrity Commission.” Something being a way of life does not automatically make it unimportant to the people. This flawed argument emboldens corrupt public officials and make them comfortable.

THE MYTH CONTINUES

A useful question would have been, ‘Is corruption a major problem in Jamaica?’ The answers would be more informative if they are interpreted correctly. I doubt this would happen given the problem of misinterpreting polls since Carl Stone’s death. Jamaica has a public order problem and is one of the world’s most murderous countries where corruption is “a way of life”, yet the myth continues that corruption is unimportant.

Innumeracy, which is the lack of basic mathematical knowledge, is reinforced by a lack of critical thinking. For the young journalists that contribute to the misinterpretation, I recommend the book, Statistical Thinking Through Media Examples. Not even Jesus can help some pollsters. Academics, journalists, pollsters, and commentators have a responsibility to educate rather than confuse and mislead the public.

Christopher Charles is a professor at The UWI and an epidemiologist in training at Columbia University in New York. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com