Dear Editor,
Mr. Bisram in his letter titled “Statistical analysis of polls showed Clinton beating McCain” (SN (08-18) made the point that “It is too early (because of the inconsistent nature of early polling) to identify a trend on which candidate has a better chance of winning a majority of electoral votes (270) to win the Presidency.” Yet he arrived at the conclusion that Hillary Clinton would beat McCain by a landslide and Obama would lose to McCain in his earlier letter.
Another contradiction he made was to argue in his last paragraph that the “latest credible poll” shows a “dead heat” between McCain and Obama then ambivalently went on to say that “Obama is in the lead and McCain is the underdog.” How could there be a dead heat and yet one of the candidates is an underdog? Could Mr. Bisram make up his mind?
On the issue of the New York Times (NYT), I never disputed or questioned the reputation of the NYT. What I did argue was that any analytical methodology (even the one by the NYT) used to determine who won the most popular vote would be inaccurate because of the cloudiness surrounding Caucus states and Michigan and Florida.
Furthermore, it baffles me that an academic (I presume) like Bisram would employ the argumentum ad verecundiam (the Appeal to Authority) type of argument and imply that the authority is infallible. Academics question and critically analyze statements and arguments made by any source with the aim or reinforcing or rejecting what was posited from the source and not accepting the argument wholesale because the authority (in this case, The NYT) said so.
What does the fact that the NYT is available in many countries, it is used by academia and can be found aboard airplanes have to do with the newspaper’s credibility? No newspaper is infallible! Most make mistakes and some print stories when the evidence to support their claims is flimsy at best. Remember the NYT publishing a story earlier this year about John McCain’s purported affair with a female lobbyist even though the evidence was found wanting.
Moreover, over the entire Democratic Primary contest, I saw some of the worst forms of journalism (both print and TV) from many ‘credible’ US news agencies; I had even confided in a friend that our own Stabroek News does a better job than most of those publications.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
