Dear Editor,
I wish to express my appreciation to Stabroek News for publishing my letter ‘Concerned about poll published in SN’ (10.5.08) regarding the recently printed polls. Based on responses received to my letter, it is regrettable that both the writer and SN editor misinterpreted the intent of my original letter.
It was not my objective to condemn the poll findings. On the contrary, the intent of my letter was to indirectly request the poll writer to provide additional data to augment the credibility of the findings. In this way, the poll’s integrity can be further enhanced.
The SN editor commented that “Dr Anand Persaud is no doubt aware that before he passes judgment it is necessary to weigh the evidence first.” I could not agree with him/her more. I respectfully submit to the SN editor that no substantial back-up evidence was presented in the printed article.
Perhaps the SN editor may concur with this observation.
I was unaware, until today (May 11, 2008), that the polling organization was provided financial remuneration by Stabroek News for the executed polls.
I would like to ask the writer a few questions based on his response to my original letter:
1. Who are the “people” who collected the data? If possible, can contact names be provided?
2. Were the “people” who collected data paid by Stabroek News?
3. For the uneducated like me, please elaborate on how “standard intercept contact methodology” was implemented in your poll?
4. Many people in Guyana have, unfortunately, never participated in a NACTA poll. Can the writer suggest what criteria are being exercised to determine who is chosen as part of the random sample size? The concluded poll sample size was 890 as earlier reported by the writer.
I apologize if my original letter offended anyone. Hopefully, lucid and concise answers to the above questions will seek to clarify lingering issues.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Anand Persaud
Editor’s note
Dr Persaud did “condemn” the poll in his letter of May 10, viz: “I would humbly request that editors of Stabroek News refrain from publishing articles of questionable accuracy since it does not help the credibility of a newspaper if such articles are published.”
Where question 2 is concerned, SN did not pay anyone who collected data; we gave Mr Bisram himself a sum to help cover his expenses – it was not “remuneration,” as stated by the writer above – and he conducted the poll independently of us, and made whatever payments he regarded as necessary. For the rest, we will forward Dr Persaud’s queries to Mr Bisram for any comments he may wish to make.
