Take it with a grain of salt

“How on earth can Alvarez, who has a high trust score of 87 percent have on the other hand an approval score of only 47 percent?

Critics of President Rody were predicting a near doomsday scenario for him after the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey results were released with its usual useless net ratings. It shows a plunge in the President’s satisfaction net rating at net 45, caused by a rise in the number of dissatisfied respondents.

The respondents’ score was 65 percent satisfied, but critics used the net plunge to get more support for their Rody ouster plans.

Predictably, the critics started giving reasons for the plunge, using Rody’s “God is stupid” remark, despite the fact that there was nothing in that SWS survey that indicated Rody’s God remark caused the drop. They kept up with the criticisms and dire scenarios, claiming the plunge came about due to Rody’s continued courting of China to the point of the country losing its territories to China and the South China Sea issue and other reasons not based on facts.

Along came the Pulse Asia survey where the approval and trust ratings showed an 88 and 87 scores and, suddenly, the critics were quiet on this rise in Rody’s survey numbers. It was just a one day story.

Pulse Asia, for some reason, was on the defensive over the disparity in survey numbers between SWS and Pulse, offered the excuse that the dates of the surveys conducted were different.

Pulse claimed at the time it conducted the survey, which was earlier than the SWS’ survey date, the God issue—where Rody slammed the Catholic God– was not as yet in the news.

Personally, that’s a dumb excuse since the “God is stupid” issue was not even asked by either of these firms when they conducted the survey. This appeared to be pure guesswork on their part.

One has to ask where these firms and those who buy these survey numbers get their conclusions, given the fact that evidently, respondents are not even asked the question, in this instance, whether they are aware of the God issue or whatever issue there is, or was, that would provide the justification for rating plunges or rises on those surveyed. But to this day, these survey outfits and critics and defenders give their own conclusions without any basis and are lapped by the media.

“SWS uses questions based on ‘satisfaction’ while Pulse uses ‘approval.’

What is needed is for them to enlighten the public on the difference in the questions asked of supposed respondents in claimed face to face interviews.

SWS uses questions based on “satisfaction” while Pulse uses “approval” which are two different things. One is based on whether or not the respondent approves of the performance of an official, whether president, vice president, Senate president, House Speaker or Chief Justice, the usual personalities surveyed.

SWS uses satisfaction questions for answers from respondents. But it must be asked: Are respondents satisfied with what? Their performance in office or the way they conduct themselves, which are two different issues.

It must also be asked of such ratings on the other officials’ “satisfaction/approval” ratings.

Take Vice President Leni Robredo’s survey ratings. Why have her survey satisfaction numbers also dropped in the SWS ratings, where Rody’s numbers also dropped, yet rose at the same time Rody’s approval ratings soared?

In the matter of public satisfaction where she dipped in her numbers as Rody’s did, what reason was there for her plunge in ratings? The God issue? Her constant criticisms against Rody?

That should be hard to say, since such direct questions on such topics are hardly ever asked of respondents.

Robredo obtained 62 percent, then Senate chief Koko Pimentel had 72 percent and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez obtained an approval rating of 47 percent and a trust score of 87 percent.

How on earth can Alvarez, who has a high trust score of 87 percent have on the other hand an approval score of only 47 percent? Respondents trust him but only a plurality approve of his performance? Where’s the logic?

Quite frankly, Filipinos should not take survey results as gospel truth, especially their conclusions made by analysts since their analyses are hardly fact-based and purely guesswork.

Moreover, in the past, especially in pre-election surveys, there have been instances where survey numbers were fudged, to give the public the impression that candidate A, B or C are the probable winners of the race, whether on the national level or the regional level.

These two survey outfits have been proven wrong in their results many times.

Survey results showing plunges and rises, should always be taken with a grain of salt.