The bad, the worse, and the ugly of survey bias: How EVA manufactures opinion through unprofessional surveys

By admin On Jan 29, 2024

Both image and headline of EVA’s report attempt at sewing polarization

The Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA, established in 1974, is a think tank focusing on economic and societal issues in Finland. It conducts research and provides insights into Finland’s economy, society, and position in global affairs. EVA describes itself as aiming to “stimulate public debate and contribute to informed decision-making by producing studies, surveys, and analyses on various topics, including economic policies, business trends, and societal values.” After Finland joined the EU, EVA was being dismantled as the “world seemed ready,” but it was rejuvenated after 9/11 “to address the changing global landscape.”

The change EVA wanted to address was that history is not ending, but the US hegemony has serious challengers and is cracking. Forces behind EVA, and every director of the organization – all of them extremely pro-NATO and pro-USA – felt that they are still needed to defend that worldview, where the USA is the dominant power and Europe an obedient wingman. Blind to the shifts in the tectonic plates of global geopolitics and blind to its own outdated mindset and worldview, every blog, survey, or publication EVA has released since its reinvention is constructed from a deep-seated bias without the basic scientific hygiene or even an attempt in appearing impartial.

The Essence of Survey Methodology

Surveys are an important method of screening public opinion when constructed and conducted impartially. Asking people about politics, economy, culture, religion, or their specific areas of expertise can give us an overall perspective of what the society thinks at a certain point in time. This valuable instrument, however, can easily be abused to manufacture the results we want. As it is impossible to ask every citizen of a country or member of a society except in a referendum, there are usually “samples” of the population selected to answer a set of given questions. To get an outcome closer to what surveyors wish, you can select a certain cohort of the population which is more inclined to your opinion, or formulate the questions in a way that pushes the respondents to tick your wanted box. Then you can publish the results by underlining a certain portion of the result and make that the prominent issue of the society.

EVA’s Approach in Surveys

A recent survey, EVA does all of the above. The survey which was designed to manufacture an anti-China, Anti-Russia, and a pro-USA result, in addition to selecting a predetermined cohort of respondents, the surveyors have done their best to formulate the question in a manner that pushes the respondent to tick the box the survey designers strongly suggest. When they do not succeed in getting a black and white view as they wished, they still highlight the results they prefer to see in the report and leave the critical parts in the fine print.

EVA published the survey titled “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – How Finns Think About the United States, Russia, and China.” Leading the report with: “A majority of Finns view China (72%) and Russia (94%) negatively, according to EVA’s Values and Attitudes Survey, which asked Finns about their opinions and views on the United States, China, and eight other significant countries in world politics.”

The timing of the survey indeed reflects the effects of the extreme wave of pro-USA and pro-NATO propaganda and negative reporting of the rest of the world, including China, Russia, and the global south more than a true cross section of public opinion. Suggestive questions push respondents to reiterate the lessons learned from the biased mainstream media like primary school students. “Despite its problems, the United States is a central defender of Western values in the world and an important partner for Finland,” asks one of the questions.

The question seems to lead respondents towards a specific viewpoint by stating that the United States is a “central defender of Western values” and an “important partner for Finland.” This presupposes a positive role of the U.S. in global affairs and Finland’s relationship with it, which influences the respondents’ answers. The question also contains assumptions about the role and perception of the United States. It does not allow respondents to express a different view of the U.S.’s role in defending Western values or its importance to Finland. Last but not least, adding the exemptive phrase “despite problems” takes away any hesitation respondents may have regarding numerous and continuous problems with war crimes and human rights violations committed by the US and its allies such as Israel. In reality, recent history proves that to say that the USA is a defendant of any values except its own interests does not stand scrutiny.

Interestingly, the responses to another question: “USA is a good actor in world politics and deserves the support of Finland,” where only 41% of respondents agree, does not make it to the headline of the survey, neither the fact that 88% of respondents believe that the United States is an unequal society with large income and welfare disparities, and 82% see the country being consumed by internal disputes, and only 27% see the US as part of the European cultural sphere and only 17% believe that the USA is an exemplary democracy.

Also, 69% of respondents agree with the phrase that “The United States is an unpredictable ally, because people like Donald Trump could regain leadership.” Less than half (45%) of respondents see Joe Biden’s USA as trustworthy and only half of respondents believe that Finland’s interest is “whatever the issue” to collaborate deeply with the United States.

The vast majority of respondents (71%) also stated that Finland should not make itself dependent on the USA, because it always puts its own interests first. 56% of respondents agreed to another statement, that China is rising to the superpower state comparable to the US, These statistics, which could have been as well raised to the headline of the report are indeed indicating that the last couple of years of extreme pro-US propaganda in the Finnish media and joining NATO have not been able to convince Finns that the USA is a trustworthy partner with real values they could agree with.

When it comes to China and Russia on the other hand, the survey designers make sure that the responses are skewed towards a negative view of these countries. They could have asked, for example: Should Finland, despite all problems, keep a balanced economic relationship with countries like China, India, and Brazil. Instead, the question posed as “Finland must decrease its financial ties to China quickly,” after another suggestive question asking if in respondents’ opinion China was a centrally led dictatorship.

Despite clear attempts of the surveyors to push respondents to a pro-USA and anti-China result, the survey indeed brings out the confusion and prejudice seeded in Finnish society and is not in any way conclusive of a clear shift of Finns towards the USA and away from China, a multipolar world, and the global south. However, The published report underlines the fabricated dichotomy and reflects the mindset of the EVA “think tankers” rather than the reality which can be seen in the details of their own survey.

Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi