Thursday
Feb042010
Iran Spam, Spam, Lovely Spam: Mass E-mails, Polls, and "Analysis"
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 7:15
So, in my inbox yesterday is this proclamation from Program on International Policy Attitudes/WorldPublicOpinion.org at the University of Maryland: "Analysis of Multiple Polls Finds Little Evidence Iranian Public Sees Government as Illegitimate".
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE[/youtube]
Wow, what a revelation! But then I remember that PIPA/WPO put out a poll last August/September which, with its insistence that more of 80 percent of Iranians thought the June election was legitimate, was roundly thrashed for its methodology --- you know, strangers from a "Western" organisation ringing up Mr. or Mrs. Azadi, amidst the internal tension, and expecting a straight answer to, "You think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Good Guy?"
Now be fair, I chide myself. Let's see the new evidence that PIPA/WPO has put together, hopefully by doing something more than cold-calling. And it is....
OK, so you're recycling this allegation as scientific proof, even though there is absolutely nothing new since your telephone fun five months ago. I wouldn't let one of my students blow the dust off a sub-standard essay from the previous academic year and pass it off as first-class thought and analysis, so why should I cut you some slack because you have a fancy name and know how to mass e-mail?
Yep, mass e-mail. Because I had colleagues forwarding me this shock "study" throughout the day. Some saw through the ruse (I won't repeat the expletive-filled response of one expert Iran analyst), but others thought it was a dramatic revelation that --- not in September 2009 but in February 2010, after all the developments of Qods Day, the demonstrations of 4 November and 7 December, and the catalytic events of Ashura --- more than 80% of Iranians still thought the election (and, by implication, the legitimacy of the Government) was beyond dispute.
Now the punch line. Why did PIPA/WPO/EIEIO launch this spam attack? Hmm, guess what else happened yesterday?
Now how could a respected think tank big up an old poll, supported by even older polls going back to early 2009, as an event so darn important that you have to beat up someone and grab their invite to get in?
Well, well, let's just check who amongst the leading lights at the New American Foundation might have dressed up analytic mutton as lamb. Ah, yes, a Mr Flynt Leverett.
(Folks, because I'm a nice guy, I'm warning you. Cease and desist. Otherwise, I'll bring back Persian Umpire, and he's a much better satirist than I am.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE[/youtube]
Wow, what a revelation! But then I remember that PIPA/WPO put out a poll last August/September which, with its insistence that more of 80 percent of Iranians thought the June election was legitimate, was roundly thrashed for its methodology --- you know, strangers from a "Western" organisation ringing up Mr. or Mrs. Azadi, amidst the internal tension, and expecting a straight answer to, "You think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Good Guy?"
Latest Iran Video: What Do the Iranian People Really Think? (4 February)
The Latest from Iran (4 February): The Relay of Opposition
Now be fair, I chide myself. Let's see the new evidence that PIPA/WPO has put together, hopefully by doing something more than cold-calling. And it is....
The analysis...was based on:
• a series of 10 recently-released polls conducted by the University of Tehran; eight conducted in the month before the June 12 election and two conducted in the month after the election, based on telephone interviews conducted within Iran
• a poll by GlobeScan conducted shortly after the election, based on telephone interviews conducted within Iran
• a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org (managed by PIPA) conducted August 27--September 10, based on telephone interviews made by calling into Iran
OK, so you're recycling this allegation as scientific proof, even though there is absolutely nothing new since your telephone fun five months ago. I wouldn't let one of my students blow the dust off a sub-standard essay from the previous academic year and pass it off as first-class thought and analysis, so why should I cut you some slack because you have a fancy name and know how to mass e-mail?
Yep, mass e-mail. Because I had colleagues forwarding me this shock "study" throughout the day. Some saw through the ruse (I won't repeat the expletive-filled response of one expert Iran analyst), but others thought it was a dramatic revelation that --- not in September 2009 but in February 2010, after all the developments of Qods Day, the demonstrations of 4 November and 7 December, and the catalytic events of Ashura --- more than 80% of Iranians still thought the election (and, by implication, the legitimacy of the Government) was beyond dispute.
Now the punch line. Why did PIPA/WPO/EIEIO launch this spam attack? Hmm, guess what else happened yesterday?
The New America Foundation and WorldPublicOpinion.org are having an invitation-only event “to discuss what the Iranian public really thinks on key issues and its implications for US foreign policy.” WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) will present the findings of its polls.
Event Time and Location:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 – 12:15pm – 2:15pm
New America Foundation
1899 L Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC, 20036
Now how could a respected think tank big up an old poll, supported by even older polls going back to early 2009, as an event so darn important that you have to beat up someone and grab their invite to get in?
Well, well, let's just check who amongst the leading lights at the New American Foundation might have dressed up analytic mutton as lamb. Ah, yes, a Mr Flynt Leverett.
(Folks, because I'm a nice guy, I'm warning you. Cease and desist. Otherwise, I'll bring back Persian Umpire, and he's a much better satirist than I am.)
Reader Comments (3)
hehe, Monty Python...
You know, these could have made a skit accusing Iranian detainees of crimes and it would have been just as convincing as those made by the govt.
RE the ubiquitous Leveretts and our "ah-ha" moments when we discover them to be behind shameless acts of regime apology, here's an episode of Inside Story from 18 January (Are sanctions the only way to go against Tehran? And can they work at all?) in which two ubiquitous regime apologists discover true love. This time the Mutual Admiration Society is formed by none other than Mr Leverett's better half Hillary and Herr Doktor Professor Marandi, leaving fellow guest Kenneth Katzman, a Gulf affairs analyst with the Congressional Research Council, to play the role of 'terzo incommodo':
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/01/201011813576958385.html
Perhaps this "study" was performed by the "academic" Mohammad Marandi?