The Unkindest Cut of All

So, if it had been Fox News, I could have understood. Or even MSNBC, well maybe... But et tu, NPR? What the?

I was driving around on my lunch hour a few weeks ago listening to "Talk of the Nation", an NPR produced radio talk show. Neal Conan, the host, came across the air waves saying, "The American family has changed...A new Pew Research poll asked Americans about these trends [unmarried couples, gay parents and people who chose not to have children at all] and found that almost 70 percent believe that single women raising children on their own is bad for society."

Link to the transcript and recording - http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134031175/For-Single-Mothers-Stigma-Difficult-To-Shake

Now, I've heard of the Pew Research Center before - actually the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press - and I've always just imputed legitimacy to the organization. I mean, it certainly sounds legit. And they are often quoted on NPR.

So normally I wouldn't question their findings. That is unless they'd happened to have a representative, Rich Moran, on TOTN that particular day who was making Charlie Sheen sound like Jim Cooper. According to the transcript Rich Moron (NOT a spelling error) is a "Senior Editor" for Pew. I looked on their website, though, and he's not listed as a current employee. Hopefully he was fired after his shameful performance on TOTN.

I will concede the point that society as a whole would probably prefer two parent families to single parent households. Not that there is any logic in that particular view, because by extrapolating on that line of thinking, I probably should just move on out to Utah and get myself a couple or three Sister Wives if we go with the theory that more is better. (I, on the other hand, side with that late great Diana Vreeland, "Less is more.")

My beef with this particular segment is that the study described is not an accurate or reliable poll and its being propounded as fact by Mr. Moran who is obviously biased. No problem with being biased. I am. But let's distinguish between what you think and what you've proved and if you do claim to have proved a point, let's dig a little deeper into your methodology. What say Rich? Game on, let's go....

METHODOLOGY

The poll in question takes a sample of "almost 3000 Americans". In 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the United States was 307,006,550. This means that the size of the sample used was less than .00977% of the entire population of the U.S.

Also, a statistical sample is expected to mirror the population from which it is taken. A quick look at the Pew Center's polling methods indicate that this is not the case. The standard polling method used is a telephone survey using random digit dialing. So the Pew Center is only going to reach those individuals who will answer a call from an unknown or unrecognized telephone number. Ask yourself, would I answer a call from a number I don't recognize? Would anyone I know? One can only assume that talking to shut ins, extremely lonely people, etc. NOT a randomized sample of the U.S. public at all.

My final point and most important point about this survey - the language used in framing the question and the question itself. I think that its pretty telling that Rich Moran never asked the respondents their feelings about single dads, or even single parents, just single moms, and not single "mothers", single "moms". In fact, it never even occurred to Mr. Moran to ask the question.

"CONAN: Did the same results obtain if you said: What if they're raised by a single father?

Mr. MORAN: Interesting. We did not ask - we didn't ask that. Since most single-parent households are by women, it's - the real issue is single moms."

I'm not sure whether Mr. Moran's response is visceral or intellectual, but it would seem the former, given that (according to the 2009 U.S. Census) 15% of all single parent households are headed by men. While not the majority, that would seem to be a fairly significant number, at least worthy of consideration. Also, consider that 10% of all single parent households were headed by men in 1980 (also according to the Census bureau) and it would seem to mark a growing trend.

It would seem that the question should have referred to single parent households, NOT "single moms". Mr. Moran states:

"I don't know what the answer would have been had we asked about single fathers. Something tells me that it would have been different, but in the same direction, maybe not the same magnitude or maybe greater.

The issue is the outcomes that come from a child being raised by just one parent. Everyone agrees, or most everyone, that the best possible situation is a loving mother and father raising a child."

So, shouldn't that have been the question that you asked, Rich?

I'm not splitting hairs. Semantics play a HUGE role in polling. For example, suppose you were asked, "Do you see any societal damage from a household where same sex partners are co-parenting a child?" How do you feel about that question? Its kinda warm and fuzzy. Now, how do you feel when you are asked, "Do you think its okay for two homosexual men to have unsupervised custody of a little boy?" I'd wager that you have a different reaction.

THOUGHTS

Its hard enough dealing with society's preconceptions of single parenthood without having biased opinions presented as scientific fact. The media portrays single women with children as either superstar celebrity moms living a fantasy lifestyle or the TeenMom model of motherhood filled with drama and angst. I am jaded enough that when I see a "reality" show on TV, I know its anything but. Hopefully, I'm not alone in that.

On the other hand, when I look to a trusted source, which NPR once was for me, and faulty studies being presented as fact, well, anyone could be misledt. In this particular instance, the commentator, Rich Moran, was so inaccurate that bells went off with me and I looked a little deeper, but what if I hadn't? Would I just accept his flawed study as the gospel? Frankly, maybe I would.

Fortunately, he confuses his facts and figures enough that I looked a little deeper, but that might not have been the case. I mean, when someone confuses "99%" and "69%" - now, that's a pretty big difference. Or a pollster who never even thought to ask the question about single dads. I'm not a journalist, but I would assume that there is some sort of guideline or standard that the profession must adhere to?

I do think that in this particular segment, Neal Conan did attempt to maintain an impartial stance. But by presenting Rich Moran as a representative of "an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues," TOTN does its listeners a grave disservice. Mr. Moran can go on any show that will have him and say whatever he likes, and I fully support his right to do so. However, to make representations based on fact one must have some basis in fact. That's only logical, right?

Mr. Moran misrepresents the work of Princeton academic, Sara McLanahan, as well -

"CONAN: And studies also suggest that it's the educational achievements of the mom, no matter what, how many parents there are in the family, the determining factor of how well their children are likely to do.

Mr. MORAN: You know, and that is true, but Sara McLanahan of Princeton did one of the path-breaking studies in the '90s and actually controlled for the education of the parent and found that it didn't make a lot of difference."

So, I looked up Sara McLanahan. Now, I'm not saying that she NEVER did a study with the results cited above. But I couldn't find it. ANYWHERE. I did find this quote, excerpted from an article dated 10/5/10 in the Kalamazoo Opinion:

"It’s true that the strongest predictor of a child’s school success is the education level of the mother — not whether the mother is married, McLanahan said."

Ms. McLanahan is not completely ruling out marital status and family composition as a factor. But its not as bad as Mr. Moran makes it out to be. Here's a link to the whole article. Judge for yourself:

www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/10/column_does_single_parenthood.html

So either Mr. Moran was wrong to begin with, which looks increasingly probable, or Ms. McLanahan has changed her views over the last 20 years. Either way, he makes an inaccurate representation of her views. That's just damn irresponsible.

CONCLUSION

Hey, I'm not trying to say that single parenthood is any nirvana for parents or children. I'm also not denying that having two loving, committed, stable parents is probably better than just having one. I'm also not putting my opinions out there as the Gospel truth. I'm telling you what I think and what I think is this - just because you happen to be raised by a single mother doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to hell on a Hippty Hop.

And as a single parent, I really don't need any more negative stereotypes out there than already exist. ESPECIALLY not stereotypes disguised as statistically sound research. So that's my point, for what its worth.

Oh, yeah, and the next "pledge drive" that comes around, NPR? Well, I think that you can take your Praire Home Companion CD or David Sedaris autographed novel and just use your imagination. K?