Comments on: BBC report findings from a sub-sample of NINE

By: links for 2009-03-02 « Embololalia

links for 2009-03-02 « Embololalia — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:13:52 +0000

[...] BBC report findings from a sub-sample of NINE I suppose we should at least be grateful for that small caveat about sample size and that the tables are there on the BBC site to see, since the BBC story then gets picked up by other people who report it even more badly. For example, the Telegraph make the findings about Muslims – based on 21 people remember – the headline of the story. The Daily Mail surpass that by also highlighting that “three-quarters of Sikhs said…” There were 3, that’s THREE, Sikhs in the sample. (tags: statistics dailymail bbc journalism media religion) [...]

By: john t t

john t t — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:51:51 +0000

Neil – the link is to do with identity within a sample. As a catholic (more celtic than Roman) I agree with your definition, and though I might be regarded by some as lapsed, it’s my church as much as anyone else’s, and if I decided to attend a Sikh temple every few months, I’d happily count myself as part of the Sikh sample in a poll.

As for Anthony’s answer to me earlier (many thanks), it would seem that the pollster made no assumption about their level of commitment.

By: Cllr Peter Cairns (SNP)

Cllr Peter Cairns (SNP) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:56:47 +0000

Kier,

Non partisan…… I called someone a heretic…..

Peter.

By: Keir

Keir — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:18:17 +0000

@Neil – it’s “ascended” slightly higher than that and I am proud to say it’s about as none partisan as you can get – so let’s not worry about the point of it…

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:04:51 +0000

Paul H-J,

Presbyterians (in Scotland, I don’t know about elsewhere) don’t really use any of the creeds as such, but assent to the Apostles creed. I haven’t got the text right now, but I can post it later if you wish. Looking at Kier’s translation of the Nicene creed, I can see nothing in it with which Presbyterians would disagree, except calling the virgin Mary “holy”.

As for the use of the word “Catholic” – it simply means “universal” and the general view of it (among non Roman Catholics) is that it refers to all believers in the world and not to any particular denomination.

I am not entirely sure wht the significance of this discussion is, even after reading the thread. Was this not supposed to be a thread where Anthony got us all to criticise the Telegraph and the Mail?