I got a tip about an image conscious polling firm, whose senior vice president left legal threats for a blogger they felt had defamed their company. The post has since been altered, but the graphs remain for readers to draw their own conclusions about the accuracy of various national polling firms, including one that seems to stick out. I’m sure you can guess which one, based on who has lawyers dispatched to the scene.
Because Jim Harris, former leader of the Green Party, had agreed with the analysis posted on Paulitics, John Wright’s Ipsos-Reid legal counsel offered to sue Harris “AND the Green Party['s] [...] over the line” claim that Green Party polling numbers are suppressed by at least one polling firm.
Ipsos-Reid legal counsel was apparently salivating at the possibility of taking on a national political party (I base my imagination of a drooling lawyer on the superfluous, and misdirected warning {to a space Harris doesn’t monitor}, and personal dig Wright got in on Harris about rejecting his offer to be “Facebook friends”). I mean seriously, isn’t it enough to threaten someone with a lawsuit, now you have to remind them that you snubbed them on a social networking site? And just think of how easy it would have been to deliver the threat of a lawsuit if you were Facebook friends?
Inbox (1) |V|
John Wright - - You’ve got Lawsuit mail!
November 30, 2007 - - Hi Jim, u suk!!!
Really guys, do lawyers need any more work? Aren’t they busy enough kissing babies, warming peoples’ hearts, or running for office?
==
Wracking my brain, I couldn’t remember when before I’d seen a polling company get upset over something someone posted online. Does anyone remember who it was, and where the incident took place?
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
knb | 03-Dec-07 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
I wrote this guy once after hearing him on local talk radio. He was quite obviously bias and I know people who know him, so I could put facts behind what he said.
He lashed out at me like nobody’s business. Don’t you hate opening your mail in the morning to someone like that?
I fought back for a bit, but gave up. He’s not worth arguing with. His loyalties are evident but he does try to disguise them with leading questions. One of his commentators on the show is Kinsella. The most anti-Liberal, Liberal out there. He and Copps make us wonder why they were ever involved in the party, imo.
Whether or not his view play’s to the results of polls, I do not know. It is interesting though.
The radio station for those of you who are not in Ontario is CFRB. The program is on Saturday evening at
6:30 pm, for those who care to listen on line.
rob | 03-Dec-07 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
Didn’t that happen to Cherniak?
knb | 03-Dec-07 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
Rob, do you mean what happened to me or the law suit?
john wright | 03-Dec-07 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
Hey, 1knb…what’s this all about:
“He lashed out at me like nobody’s business. Don’t you hate opening your mail in the morning to someone like that?
I fought back for a bit, but gave up. He’s not worth arguing with. His loyalties are evident but he does try to disguise them with leading questions.”
I don’t have any loyalties to any political parties nor do I care to write “leading questions”…and frankly, I don’t remember our e-mail conversation so it really didn’t make a big impression.
As for all of the above, here’s the deal…good discourse is fine, fair game and fair ball…but if you are going to malign a person or a company be prepared to deal with whatever and wherever you publish. if it was printed on paper, like a newspaper, and viewed by thousands, it would be dealt with the same way. Free speech has it’s legal limits. That’s life.
John Wright
Senior Vice President
Ipsos reid
Sean S. | 03-Dec-07 at 10:11 pm | Permalink
someone has a bit too much time on their hands. Funny how the huge difference between the competing polls has never been explained but lawsuits are being threatened like they are going out of style. I guess in the long run people will take notice of such difference and start discounting the ones that just don’t mesh. If the kids on Sesame Street can figure it out I am sure newspapers and the public will catch on soon enough.
rob | 04-Dec-07 at 1:18 am | Permalink
Wow. That was a pretty teriffic response time.
rob | 04-Dec-07 at 1:19 am | Permalink
Oh, and I meant the threatened lawsuit. I think Cherniak took down the offending post. It was quite a while back, probably a couple years now.
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 7:34 am | Permalink
That’s what I meant Rob. I might contact Jason to see if it was him, unless John Wright wants to confirm it and save time.
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 7:53 am | Permalink
I found someone else grumbling online about a particular pollster’s Conservative bias, and the hypothetical danger in that since a chunk of people vote for the perceived leader. Why do you think Bush won, after all? — Because he lead before. It’s why Hillary will win in November too, and not even Ron Paul’s march online can stop it.
==
On another note:
John W., would you provide an explanation of why Ipsos-Reid’s polling tends to have the Conservative Party coming out on average with higher numbers than other Canadian poll companies? What are other companies likely doing wrong/differently?
I hope you don’t mind my leading question.
I’m not a PR person, but it would have made sense to me to instead explain to Paulitics and his readers where his analysis was flawed, before resorting to consulting a team of trained monki…err… lawyers. Anyway, that’s what a citizen without a lawyer on retainer would think of first. This isn’t a newspaper after all, it’s the blogosphere, and when you threaten one of us, our friends and acquaintances take note because we aren’t competitors.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 8:37 am | Permalink
I really can’t speak for the other polling firms but I can say this: Darrell Bricker and i have been doing this at the same firm with the same methodology for 20 years and we haven’t changed a thing…questions are uncontaminated off the top…
Second, if you believe that the Green Party is at 14% nationally–ahead of the NDP–then please tell your friend the tooth fairy to drop by…it is just possible that the over representation in some of those polls are causing this; it’s also possible that some questions are put at the end or that the data weighting is not done like ours.
Whatever the difference, the last 4 polls are different–hardly a big blip over the past 20 years, and especially using our methodology as we did in Ontario that only put us one point out of the actual result…so, given our track record, we will just stick with it the way it is…
As to the blogshere, I can appreciate you “chums” getting together and having a wag…but let’s make a few things clear: the web is not a free zone for “whatever goes”. Sorry folks, but that ended a long time ago.
Second, clips and links can be sent around the world and as they say “a lie can be halfway around the world before truth gets its pants on”. We have to deal with this stuff right away because it is business, not personal.
Third, what really sparked all of this is that it showed up on the official site of the Green Party of Canada. When that happens it get’s to a whole new level.
And, let’s not forget the fact that we were the first ones in the country to put the Green Party on our polling surveys.
Fourth, each one of those who posted the comments have now, on their own advice, taken them down or altered them, because in the end they knew you cannot make unfounded or defamatory claims about a person or company.
So we didn’t threaten anyone. We suggested, then gave them 2 1/2 days to do something about it and suggested that if they didn’t we had other remedies we were compelled to follow. That’s it.
So, it is all resolved to our satisfaction and not a shot fired.
Anyways, as for the polling, no conspiracy or influence here…just the same old same old for 20 years. That may not suit some but that’s the truth.
Regards,
s.b. | 04-Dec-07 at 8:45 am | Permalink
I wouldn’t believe an Ipsos Reid poll that showed kids like puppies. They are a propaganda firm, not a valid polling company and they can sue me if they want. I’ll stand up in court and say it too. Their validy or lack therof can be proven mathematically. If you’re out there, you’re out there. The numbers don’t lie. Their polls aren’t valid! They are paid for propaganda. Sue me!
s.b. | 04-Dec-07 at 8:47 am | Permalink
John Wright, have you been doing internet polling for 20 years, me things not. That is a significant change in methodology.
s.b. | 04-Dec-07 at 8:53 am | Permalink
And Ipsos Reid did significantly change their question right before the last election so they could pretend their numbers were even close to accurate. So did Alan Gregg’s company. SES, now Nanos is the only consistently valid neutral polling firm in Canada. Look if you want to promote a product for advertising purposes and skew a poll in your favour, or fudge some kind of a drug trial, which happens all the time, that’s up to those industries to regulate this kind of propaganda. If you want to fudge political polls, which are in the interest of all Candians, including political bloggers have a right to debunk your findings. I would go further and say that if Ipsos pursues this, courts should be examining the legality of what they do in the political arena and whether or not it should be stopped. Reporting the news is one thing, inventing it is another.
Ed Hollett | 04-Dec-07 at 8:57 am | Permalink
Is Ipsos polling biased to favour Conservatives?
It’s an arguable point but I would suggest that the answer may lie in the way the polling was conducted rather than in any conscious act of Ipsos management.
A similar situation occured during a federal election with Strategic Counsel. It’s results were well off the rest of the pack and about two weeks before polling day began to reflect the same numbers as the rest.
There’s no reason to believe any reputable firm like Ipsos would deliberately skew results. However, it is possible that in the sample selection or in some other aspect of the methodology, Ipsos has managed to produce a result which is out of whack with other pollsters. In other words, they have a series of outliers. It happens. it’s not a crime, nor is it a reason to impute motives to the firm. It also doesn’t mean their methodology is fatally flawed or even flawed at all.
In the particular case of the most recent national Ipsos poll reported on the company website, the news release is there as is the data table for the single question. There is no indication of how the survey was conducted (i.e. was it alone or was it one question among a bunch in an omnibus). Maybe Ipsos has described their metholody elsewhere; if not, it might be an idea to give the public some idea of how they do their business.
The national results appear to be presented straightforwardly and on the face of it the results and the margin of error seem reasonable.
However, the release makes statements about specific provinces and specific regions without indicating the specifc margin of error for the sub-sample. There is an italicised proviso that ‘[t]he margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population’ however, the specific margin of error is not reported.
Personally I have a problem with that since people may erroneously believe that the same margin of error applies to the sub-samples as apply to the national one. Alternately, they may believe the margin of error varies only slightly from the 3.1% reported for the national survey. Experience with other polling firms suggests the margin of error can be substantively higher in these instances, so much higher in fact that the sub-samples are functionally useless. They tell us absolutely nothing with reliability and assurance.
I do find it curious that Ipsos has tackled these posts with such vigor. Perhaps there is a backstory here that I am not seeing. The facebook reference is a clue there is a background exchange or some other history here that the casual observer - like me - wouldn’t see.
John Wright, Senior Vice President, Ipsos Reid | 04-Dec-07 at 9:08 am | Permalink
This is all nonsense…
We haven’t altered a thing on our questions…I would welcome testifying under oath…not one blessed thing has changed.
Second, there is no back-channel crap going on. In fact Jim Harris is in China and when he gets back he is treating me to lunch.
Third, there is no grassy knowl here. I have indicated why I take this seriously…in fact, if you get Tom Flanagans book you will see in it 2 pages devoted to when Mr. Harper had to retract comments (and so did Preston Manning) about our firm…
So, guys, this has actualy been a lot of fun but it’s time to go and do some client work…
Ciao.
Paulitics | 04-Dec-07 at 9:52 am | Permalink
“So, guys, this has actualy been a lot of fun but it’s time to go and do some client work…”
I was actually wondering when you do have to time to do that. It seems to me as though you spend most of your time attacking blog owners.
I mean seriously, your first incoherent comment on my blog was at 12:30 in the morning. Who leaves legal threats at 12:30 in the morning???
Oh, and P.S., you wrote above that:
“each one of those who posted the comments have now, on their own advice, taken them down or altered them, because in the end they knew you cannot make unfounded or defamatory claims about a person or company.”
That is demonstrably untrue. I did not alter anything on my blog because it was unfounded or defamatory and I explicitly told you so and you are going to retract that, sir. I wrote explicitly that my changes were, to use legal language, “gratuitous” and thus were accompanied by no admission of legal guilt nor were the changes an admission that the original text was defamatory or unfounded.
Perhaps you should ask your lawyer what the word “gratuitous” means?
Kim | 04-Dec-07 at 10:02 am | Permalink
You know, I showed Wright’s original comment to a lawyer friend of mine and she asked if he’d gotten drunk one night and went trolling on the internet. Just saying.
And Wright, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Paul at Paulitics changed his post “gratuitously” for your benefit. Just in case you’re not near your legal counsel at the moment, I’d like to refresh your memory that the legal definition of “gratuitous” is something that is done unnecessarily, without admission of guilt - so essentially, giving the baby his bottle.
The blogosphere knows you’re full of it, Jim. Instead of attacking a bunch of bloggers, I suggest that you make some inquiries into your survey-taking at the lower levels, where the mistakes are evidently being made. As a former employee, this seems entirely plausible to me. It could be the callers, or those people writing the questions themselves.
Numbers aren’t a personal attack on you - the methodology of some people in your company has been found to be lacking. Unless Ipsos-Reid has a mysterious database of Conservative supporters that nobody else has access to (you and I would both agree that this is ludicrous), Ipsos-Reid and other polling firms are contacting the same public. Why they would not get the same result is something you may want to look into, instead of making empty threats to bloggers who, despite what you may think, aren’t out to “get” you.
My point is, relax and carefully consider the facts before you comment on the blogs of others. Paul didn’t change his post because he believed what you were saying - he spoke to three or four lawyers and they said that changing the language would be the easiest way to appease you, even though he did nothing wrong. I actually know for a fact that one of his lawyers begged him to take it to the media, because nothing would be better than a story about a grown man, executive to a major polling firm, bullying a college student who crunched numbers and found his company’s polling to be inadequate, just because he can. It’s fear-mongering, John. Paul gratuitously changed his post, when he could have met your case and won, or taken you to the media and made a serious dent in your personal reputation.
And instead of attacking the evidence, be the better person and admit that there might, just might, be a problem, and look into it.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 10:22 am | Permalink
Hey, Kim–if that’s your real name–at least I have the guts to come out of the blogsmog and put my name and place on the table, unlike you who just sits in the corner and pretends to be intellegent…former employee? That says a lot…what, making telephone calls?
Hey, Kim, get a real life.
Ed Hollett | 04-Dec-07 at 10:34 am | Permalink
Actually, I am starting to wonder if this person is actually Wright or if it is someone posing.
That last response is a bit to venomously personal. The spelling mistakes don’t help. As for the comment before that - the one with a complete title - he simply ignored any substantive comments.
We all might be the victims of a hoax. Either that or Ipsos will be shelling out a small fortune to their PR firm very shortly.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Hey Ed…
No, it’s actually me, just reading the alerts as they come inand just answering Kim or whoever he is in his own vernacular…
You can all go back and play in your sandbox now.
John Wright
Senior vice president
Ipsos reid
Saskboy joins Paulitics, Jim Harris and the Green Party in the ‘dog house’? « Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations | 04-Dec-07 at 11:24 am | Permalink
[...] a regular reader of Paulitics for the past few days. Since then, however, it seems as though some additional bloggers have stumbled across Wright’s comment on this blog and have written posts on their own sites [...]
Paulitics | 04-Dec-07 at 11:31 am | Permalink
John, didn’t you just write that you were done with us and that you had more important work to get to?
Oh, right, you did.
“So, guys, this has actualy [sic] been a lot of fun but it’s time to go and do some client work…
Ciao.”
I guess that didn’t take long…
Prestard McManning | 04-Dec-07 at 11:52 am | Permalink
” if you believe that the Green Party is at 14% nationally–ahead of the NDP–then please tell your friend the tooth fairy to drop by…”
oooooh! Quick! Someone sue John Wright, he’s “defaming” other pollsters.
In politics, you don’t file lawsuits, you go for someone’s credibility directly. Else everyone will believe what they say. Jim has zero credibility - his books and blog are full of errors - and has even stood (at the 2006 GPC AGM) against banning libel chill in politics. So he does deserve the lawsuit, but it will not work.
Anyone who has to threaten a lawsuit to shut up critics of its claims, methodology and conclusions, is obviously hiding something. If they threaten suits and then do the exact same thing (impugning polls by those who don’t share their conclusions) they lose all credibility. John Wright has just lost all credibility.
All lawsuits in politics backfire against those who file or threaten them and this is no exception. It’s bullying, plain and simple.
I will never believe an Ipsos poll again. And, because of his support for political libel suits, never believe Jim either. You so deserve each other.
It takes no malice to conclude that bozos should not run the government or waste precious citizen time with their abuse of process or of fact. Both of you should disappear from the political scene.
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
John, if it is you, please send a message from your Blackberry again confirming all of these comments to this point are yours. Otherwise I will identify which posts come from different computers, so no one can get away with impersonating you.
I can’t honestly believe that a Senior VP would be so petty as to belittle the contribution of [even former] ‘telephone calling’ employees.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
Hooey.
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
What is.. that you’d have someone impersonate you, or you don’t think how you dismissed Kim was belittling based on her claimed previous position?
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
Whatever.
Sean S. | 04-Dec-07 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
this “john wright” is beginning to act alot like our former friend SDAP…..any connection that you can see between the two Saskboy?
Paulitics | 04-Dec-07 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Saskboy, would you like me to e-mail you the IP address used by John Wright on my blog so you can compare it with this John Wright’s IP?
Scott Tribe | 04-Dec-07 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
Without getting involved in this spitting contest, Saskboy has access to IP addresses from visitors and commentators. He would know pretty quickly if there was a connection or not.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Have fun chasing your tails boys…
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Have fun chasing your tails boys & girls…
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
Wow. “john wright”’s IP comes up as
“12.34.119.* (Ipsos-reid)
New York, Brooklyn, United States”
Isn’t that surprising.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
This is just too funny….go do some work or play ball hockey or something…
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
I hope you’re still laughing tomorrow John when you realize what you’ve revealed to people today.
Steve V | 04-Dec-07 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
John
Just for the record, you come across as an arrogant twit in the comment section. Your slights against bloggers is interesting, because apart from a few talking heads in the media, we are the only ones who bother to read your polls extensively. In other words, why act like such a dick to your audience? Is it not valid to question you results, which are continually on the margins and scream OUTLIER. Your firm consistently shows the Tories with a sizeable lead in Ontario, no other firm COMES CLOSE to that result. I suppose you could argue that your polling is superior, but it is equally valid for bloggers to question your methodology, and wonder if your questions are leading.
What becomes apparent here, you can’t take the heat and your firm is very sensitive to any scrutiny. What is a “lie” seems subjective, particularly when people trumpet numbers, narratives are formed, media takes cue, based on something which is internal, that no outside independent analysis can verify.
If you want to call out the dogs and sue somebody, then you engage in a public relations nightmare and show yourself to be petty. I see no benefit in being antagonist, as you have shown here, especially when we actually take the time to scan your results. Get used to the bloggers, we’re here to stay and you don’t get to publish without critical analysis.
p.s- ask Ipsos if they can send you on people’s skill course, because you are clearly lacking in that department.
john wright | 04-Dec-07 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
Wow, you guys whip yourselves into a frenzy…
Steve V | 04-Dec-07 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
Guess who just visited my website:
12.34.119.# (IPSOS-REID)
ISP AT&T WorldNet Services
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : New York
City : New York
Lat/Long : 40.7619, -73.9763 (Map)
Saskboy | 04-Dec-07 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
There’s no frenzy here, John.
RJ | 04-Dec-07 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
Wow, this has been both amazing and amusing. I have this vision of Godzilla trying to stamp on all the little ants as they come pouring out of the ant hill. How’s it working for you so far JW? Maybe a wiser VP would have quietly approached the Green Party directly and conducted this business privately and professionally since you say that is where all this started. (And where it should have ended in my humble opinion). Mind you, then I would have missed this very entertaining evening. I wonder what JW’s fellow exec’s over at Ipsos think of this. I can only imagine.
Ed Hollett | 04-Dec-07 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
A couple of times, Mr. Wright has referred to the accuracy of his firm’s last poll before polling day in the recent Ontario election as if this was a vindication of his firm’s methodology/approach.
Well, you can check the results, as reported publicly at the Ipsos website: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3671
The sample size is 800, with decided voters and leaners totaling 754. The national poll had a sample size of 866. Here’s a clue to the question about the Ipsos national poll. No need to hunt for conspiracy theories; the answer is right in front of your face.
If you want a sense of what is going on, average the polls or use whatever methodology you want. Publicly available polls like the ones being discussed here shouldn’t be used (and likely aren’t used) by political parties to make decisions and the public shouldn’t rely on them either without bearing in mind their considerable limitations. In Newfoundland and Labrador we just witnessed a spectacular example of the limitations of these publicity polls.
In short, read them and weigh them compared to other polls. Enjoy the interventions by a senior VP of one of the firms. That, in itself, has given me some choice blog material for the days ahead.
Saskatchewan Politics - Polling firm threatens blogger and Jim Harris with lawsuit | Saskapedia | 04-Dec-07 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
[...] Polling firm threatens blogger and Jim Harris with lawsuit December 3rd, 2007 I got a tip about an image conscious polling firm, whose senior vice president left legal threats for a blogger they felt had defamed their company. The post has since been altered, but the graphs remain for readers to draw their own conclusions about the accuracy of various national polling firms, including one that seems to stick out. I’m sure you can guess which one, based on who has lawyers dispatched to the s Read More… [...]
Kim | 04-Dec-07 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
Ah, “Whatever.” The recourse of teenage girls who know they’ve lost the argument.
You know what, I don’t even have to say anything anymore. You’re doing a good enough job of incriminating yourself. If you’d prefer, I can do my best impression of Charlie Brown’s teacher, and you can just respond to me how you like. Wah wah wah, wah wah.
John, if that is your real name, you got nothing. Give up, and go do some real work. Maybe this is why your company’s methodology is flawed, because company executives spend all day on the internet, whining about bloggers?
And John, you don’t know what I did at Ipsos-Reid. Don’t pretend like you do. Maybe, I had much more to do with the company than you think. Consider that.
I do have a real life. In fact, I have to go interact with actual adults in the real world now - I’ve had enough of childish behaviour like your’s.
Mark Francis | 04-Dec-07 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
I remain amazed that people feel threatened by others’ _opinions_.
Canada’s libel laws are the most backward of the true democracies in this world. It’s time for a change.
pale | 05-Dec-07 at 12:25 am | Permalink
Interesting. Someone gets paid the big bucks to write this ca ca on blogs all night….I need to look into that as a career option…
Question: Whats a grassy knowl?
*blink*
john wright | 05-Dec-07 at 9:18 am | Permalink
I agree !! Let there be no more writing of ca ca !!
Scott’s DiaTribes » Blog Archive » Giants stomping on anthills. | 05-Dec-07 at 9:56 am | Permalink
[...] had a case in saying it was libelous. That said, I do find what he’s been leaving in the comments section over here with regards to this article at Saskboy’s place to be rather …well.. [...]
Cameron Wigmore | 05-Dec-07 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
John W (Ipsos guy) said, “…if you believe that the Green Party is at 14% nationally–ahead of the NDP–then please tell your friend the tooth fairy to drop by…”
Well, one might say that it’s fairly clear that John & Ipsos is not biased in support of the Green Party. One might come to the conclusion that this guy does NOT support the Greens, but one might hesitate to say so online, unless one isn’t afraid of libel chill put upon them by chums like John.
Simon | 05-Dec-07 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
By the quote above, it seems John Wright is saying that anyone who believes in the Harris-Decima poll that pegged the Greens at 14% (the Strategic Council also had them as high as 13%) are prone to hallucinations of the tooth-fairy. Perhaps HD and SC will find such words “actionable” and threaten a libel lawsuit against JW and Ipsos-Reid. Or maybe they’re just not as petty as he is. Oops! Is calling him “petty” an actionable offense? Merriam-Webster defines “petty” as “marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies; small-minded.” With all the character witnesses between all these online forums, I’d say such a descriptor has just cause and would be very defensible in court. I mean, are witnesses even needed when there’s already such a compelling transcript?
I really can’t believe this guy is a Senior VP of any firm. I mean, shouldn’t someone like him be smart enough to realize that if he’s challenging something that allegedly defames his company he shouldn’t defame other companies, much less the bloggers who give these pollsters the most attention? In doing so, he’s really only defaming himself and nullifying his whole argument.
I’d suggest, in jest, that the blogosphere organize a class-action counter-suit against this arrogant fool, but who really wants to live in such a litigious society? Having said that, with the increasing popularity and influence of bloggers, getting ready for such a possibility in the future might be a good idea. If enough bloggers write far and wide about JW’s litigious threat, a precedent could be set to dissuade such nonsense in the future.
I read the original post in question by Paulitics and it was a rather innocuous piece of critical analysis. Critical analysis should never be confused with libel. Shame on JW for his bullying tactics. Hopefully he learns from this mistake and saves himself and other would-be bullies from further embarrassment and a counter-suit.
Chris | 05-Dec-07 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
John Wright,
I feel that the comments you made in your previous posts regarding the Green Party are defamatory. Such as:
“Second, if you believe that the Green Party is at 14% nationally–ahead of the NDP–then please tell your friend the tooth fairy to drop by…”
Please retract this statement, or you are no better than those you say are making libelous statements about your polling company.
John Wright | 05-Dec-07 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
You’re right. I will humbly submit the following:
I hereby retract any and all statements, implied or otherwise, which may have sullied, defamed or caused any undue harm to the tooth fairy. I unreservedly apologise and withdraw these views.
Cameron Wigmore | 06-Dec-07 at 12:57 am | Permalink
I’m having trouble believing this is actually John Wright, the guy with Ipsos.
Saskboy | 06-Dec-07 at 7:54 am | Permalink
I was too, until I actually saw the uncapitalized John Wright post from an IP owned by Ipsos-Reid. I suppose we could email John Wright at the Ipsos-Reid website to bring this to his attention, but I’m confident he’s aware of it, and doing it.
Green Assassin Brigade | 06-Dec-07 at 7:58 am | Permalink
MMMMM, apparently pissing off Ipsos is a great way of generating hits, I must add this to my list of things to do.
Now my life plan is finally complete
Piss off Ipsos
get massive hits
gain wider ranging popular support(calculated by someone other than Ipsos)
take over the world
Bwahahahaha!
ps, Does the Prez of Ipsos know how his V.P. spends his time?
Green Assassin Brigade | 06-Dec-07 at 8:02 am | Permalink
If they insist on being bullies about free speach, perhaps a move to boycott taking Ipsos Polls and reporting Ipsos numbers would be in order.
Saskboy | 06-Dec-07 at 8:14 am | Permalink
Ah, but Mr. Wright claims math isn’t free speech, when it’s used in such a way to demonstrate differences in Ipsos-Reid’s results opposed to tooth fairy pollsters’.
Green Assassin Brigade | 06-Dec-07 at 8:42 am | Permalink
How about adding a poll to your site.
Do you feel Ipsos Reid is
1. fair unbiased pollster
2. A lying biased manipulative waste of my time
3. or what’s an Ipsos Reid and will it sue me?
Big Guy in TB | 07-Dec-07 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
John Wright - if thats your real name - wrote on December 4th, 2007 at 10:22 am
” Hey, Kim–if that’s your real name–at least I have the guts to come out of the blogsmog and put my name and place on the table, unlike you who just sits in the corner and pretends to be intellegent…former employee? That says a lot…what, making telephone calls?
Hey, Kim, get a real life.”
As a business owner myself, I always respect my employees and never put them down as you have done here. What with all your childish and bullying comments in this blog and on Paulitics, clearly you have no people skills whatsoever. If your attitude is what prevails at I-R, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to work at an organization such as yours. Get a life loser! With garbage like you at the top, maybe you should remember, “garbage in - garbage out”. End of story.
John Wright | 07-Dec-07 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
“Get a life loser! With garbage like you at the top, maybe you should remember, “garbage in - garbage out”. End of story.”
Sorry for the echo…
Paulitics | 07-Dec-07 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Wow, less than a 15 minute response time from John Wright to Big Guy’s comment.
Does anybody need more proof that Johb Wright either a) has no life or b) isn’t as busy with ‘client work’ as he claims to be?
I mean, seriously folks, I’m a masters student who has just finished all of his assignments, essays and presentations for the semester and even I don’t have that kind of free time on my hands.
I also notice that it didn’t take Wright any time to throw that comment back to Big Guy, but that he didn’t respond to the point of blatant disrespect to one’s employees.
But, I guess what should I expect? Wright still hasn’t retracted his blatantly erroneous and misleading statement that Jim Harris and I edited our comments because we realized we did something defamatory or libelous. In fact I’m in posession of an e-mail from Jim Harris to John Wright wherein Wright is told explicitly that Harris isn’t admitting guilt. (And on my end of the story, the reason I made my edit was publicly stated on my blog for all to see and read, and it did not include an admission of guilt.)
John Wright | 07-Dec-07 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
“I’m a masters student who has just finished all of his assignments, essays and presentations for the semester and even I don’t have that kind of free time on my hands.”
As your mom and dad for a blackberry for Christmas…
John Wright | 07-Dec-07 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
“I’m a masters student who has just finished all of his assignments, essays and presentations for the semester and even I don’t have that kind of free time on my hands.”
Ask your mom and dad for a blackberry for Christmas…
Saskboy | 07-Dec-07 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
“Ask your mom and dad for a blackberry for Christmas…”
…and you too can be a Crackberry-head?
John Wright | 07-Dec-07 at 5:14 pm | Permalink
What…and no comment on the latest Federal Political Poll?
Saskboy, if you want this to be your longest comment string ever, you are going to have to be ahead of the curve…
Saskboy | 07-Dec-07 at 6:25 pm | Permalink
Trust me, you have another 150 rude posts to go before you can challenge that record.
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/07/28/breastfeeding-in-public-is-normal/
Sean rules, please don’t try to beat him.
john Wright | 07-Dec-07 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
I see…you’re right…hard to beat that one…but I still think you should keep abreast of our new poll…
Scott Tribe | 07-Dec-07 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
You’ll learn, Mr. Wright, if you take the time to do so, that the blogosphere isn’t monolithic when it comes to topics - not everyone talks about the same thing. Quite honestly, Saskboy doesn’t normally talk about polls on his blog., and wouldnt be but for this rather out of the ordinary episode.
Others in the blogosphere do talk about polls however, on a consistent basis.
Ward Bernstein | 08-Dec-07 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
Let’s be extremely careful about concluding that someone “is” John Wright simply because they have an IP number at the same company. Please remember that in any corporation, especially an unethical corporation willing to use dirty tactics like lawsuits to shut up its critics, there is someone gunning for everyone’s job.
This could well be a low level employee impersonating a drunk John Wright (what other explanation could there be for his tone?).
We all have a right to get drunk and/or go trolling - this is the carrier wave of all Internet free speech - but it should be on the Wikipedia talk page of our favourite punk band or that movie our girlfriend loves and we hate but have been forced to see over and over. Such “fun” should NOT be (a) signed by ourselves in our own official corporate job capacity (b) on core matters of claimed competence in our firm and profession (c) on public interest issues where there’s a danger people will believe and act on our opinion violently - and yes use of the courts and legislation and cops is very very very violent. The combination of (a) and (c) for a “Senior Vice President” would be toxic for the firm, as anyone associated in any way (working with, reporting to, responsible for) this person could be tainted. Seriously, would the Board of Directors of Ipsos-Reid want to be associated with ALL of the comments Wright makes above?
Anonymity is not a luxury, it’s a right. John Wright would be very well advised to start using it, before he harms others in his firm or the credibility of his customers. Goading others into giving up this right is particularly unethical in a country where they can be sued for having an opinion, or even for making true statements of fact.
As things stand, this is becoming a very very serious matter. Note the increasingly detailed and critical legal analyses of John Wright’s threats at Paulitics. Not one of which takes Wright’s side.
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others/
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/it’s-a-beautiful-thing-the-destruction-of-words”/
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/saskboy-joins-paulitics-jim-harris-and-the-green-party-in-the-dog-house/
Some posters are, based on analyses that they seem to honestly believe:
- calling for John to be fired or resign
- calling for Ipsos-Reid to silence him and end the threats for their own good
- calling for general boycotts of Ipsos-Reid or lying to their polls the publicizing this to their customers
- calling John “violent”
- calling John incompetent at statistics, notably his assigning cause to matters that only technically can be said to be correlated
- comparing John to those suing the Iranian “blogfather”
- comparing John to Wayne Crookes, the Green Party financier who sued the entire Internet (Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Myspace and more) to silence those who wanted to comment on him in that political role
This last may be the only one clearly over the line. Crookes is a unique national disgrace. He has not just threatened but actually filed many suits, all of them regarding his political activity (he has never been personally maligned nor his business impugned). He sues people who merely link to a comment Crookes dislikes. He sues people for private not just public correspondence. Two suits have been dismissed with relatively strong words from the judge. He appealed one seemingly only to increase the legal costs of his target (classic sign of SLAPP). He has continued harassment suits against people whom all witnesses have sworn are not involved, seemingly deliberately to punish them and reduce their freedom of association. He has deliberately tried to shut down forums used by his political opponents during internal GPC elections, and even sued Yahoo to punish them for not letting him. He has very freely engaged in smear campaigning and spreading easily-proven-false statements during those same elections, and made no bones about his goal being to prevent a certain person from being elected Chief Agent of the Green Party of Canada, from which position she could audit Crookes’ activities. It’s crystal clear he was trying to maintain control of that party and suppress members rights to make up their own mind based on the insider view of him.
Crookes has made international news for his abuse of process and attempts to impose BC’s absurd libel laws on California and on the whole Internet. He’s widely discussed as a threat, a menace and a disgrace by several communities including the social software and user generated content community, the citizen journalists and free poltical speech advocates, and those advocating reforms to Canadian libel laws to protect activists, whistleblowers and so on.
John Wright has done something stupid and reactive and deserves censure but until it’s clear he’s responsible for all these posts it’s not clear he deserves to be fired. If he has of course, then he does, but there are lots of extenuating circumstances. If he’s really just a foolish drunk, then, he could go to an Employee Assistance Program and take some training on journalists’ rights and how they are oppressed worldwide and why he can’t sue for opinions.
So by no means can Wright be said to deserve the comparison to Wayne Crookes. Crookes is a uniquely disreputable abuser of due process, a plain bully recognized as such by many people all over the world, who deliberately targets the innocent to put pressure on his political opponents, and who is blazing a trail that officials in oppressive countries can follow to get information on their enemies who use US or Canadian services to comment on politics. It’s not out of line to call Crookes a facilitator of state terror and the abuse of human rights, if one honestly believes he’s doing this deliberately rather than out of ignorance of what his actions entail.
John Wright isn’t so unique. He’s just someone of poor judgement.
Whether it’s continued and consistent poor judgement, we cannot say unless and until it becomes clear that he posted all the above.
IP numbers alone are not sufficient evidence to get the man fired.
John Wright | 08-Dec-07 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
If you actually assemble all the words that I have put forward on this website it works out to 933 from me compared to 6747 words that everybody else has contributed.
Most of what I have put down here has been benign. If you cut and paste everything that I’ve said into one document there is not a thing there which I am troubled by, nor do I suggest, anyone else who knows me or what I do.
For anyone else who really matters or cares to read the exchange on this particular blog [and I doubt that there are many], they will likely come to the conclusion that everyone else has contributed, with few exceptions, nothing more than hyperbole hurled under the cloak of anonymity and under the guise of free speech which is really an excuse for a tirade of invective, false facts, ridiculous indignation and total hypocrisy.
None of what anyone has said here bothers me, personally, in the least. Anyone looking in from the outside, of any merit or standing, will judge the authors by their content. And in that regard, they will likely conclude that the temper tantrums are not a substitute for thought, integrity and the guts to either defend what you have put on the record in the face of consequence or to simply correct the record when you are caught out.
This is not about lawsuits or lawyer’s letters or suing somebody or something. Those are blunt instruments and of last resort. But nonetheless, they have their foundation in law and precedent with respect to the Internet and what people say on it. That is fact.
Don’t cheapen free speech by believing that it is something that holds no consequence or is leveled by anonymous sources. Opinion is one thing; giving way to falsehood and injurious accusation without merit it is something else. If you can’t defend against the latter then you have nothing to defend that even resembles free speech.
Saskboy | 08-Dec-07 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
“This is not about lawsuits or lawyer’s letters or suing somebody or something. Those are blunt instruments and of last resort.”
Tell us John, what sharp instrument did you use to convince Paulitics that their analysis was incorrect, before you used the blunt PUBLIC threat of a lawsuit?
I’d estimate a third of what you’ve written on this thread has been mocking, sarcastic, or in poor taste.
“For anyone else who really matters or cares to read the exchange on this particular blog [and I doubt that there are many], they will likely come to the conclusion that everyone else has contributed, with few exceptions, nothing more than hyperbole hurled under the cloak of anonymity and under the guise of free speech which is really an excuse for a tirade of invective, false facts, ridiculous indignation and total hypocrisy.”
Who really matters these days John? I think you’ll find that the online world in Canada is remarkably small, and to characterize my [few] readers as insignificant, is a public relations tactical error. Could they then assume that you [I-R] are uninterested in polling their opinions?
john wright | 08-Dec-07 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Don’t cheapen free speech by believing that it is something that holds no consequence or is leveled by anonymous sources. Opinion is one thing; giving way to falsehood and injurious accusation without merit it is something else. If you can’t defend against the latter then you have nothing to defend that even resembles free speech.
Saskboy | 08-Dec-07 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
Oh my goodness. Now you’re avoiding answering questions by repeating the same drivel from before?
I had hoped you wouldn’t take yet another aspect of that ridiculous “sean” commenter from that other thread I mentioned earlier. The only ones threatening free speech are the ones who resort to lawyers to act as their mouthpiece.
john wright | 08-Dec-07 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
Don’t cheapen free speech by believing that it is something that holds no consequence or is free when it is leveled by anonymous sources. Opinion is one thing; giving way to falsehood and injurious accusation without merit is something else. If you can’t defend against the latter then you have nothing to defend that even resembles free speech.
Ward Bernstein | 08-Dec-07 at 7:13 pm | Permalink
Since this is his mantra let’s analyze it:
“Don’t cheapen free speech by believing that it is something that holds no consequence or is leveled by anonymous sources. Opinion is one thing; giving way to falsehood and injurious accusation without merit it is something else. If you can’t defend against the latter then you have nothing to defend that even resembles free speech.”
So, even in a country where corporate and power figure harassers regularly sue people for political comment, we are supposed to just ignore anonymous sources? Even if what they say is clearly correct on the face of things? Such as a statistical relationship between facts everyone agrees on? Facts need a means of verification not an authority behind them. Accepting claims just because an authority spouts them is called theocracy, not science.
John, if there is a line between “opinion” and “falsehood” that was crossed, where is that line? Where is the false factual claim made by Jim Harris or anyone else? You said “false facts” above. Where are these, please? List them with the correct fact. If you can’t, then you must grant that the line is between “opinion” and “rudely stated opinion”. Which is not a line that can be allowed to become enshrined in law, because it can’t be objectively defined, and ends up merely giving judges the power to decide who may say what.
As for “hyperbole” that you claim includes a “tirade of invective, false facts, ridiculous indignation and total hypocrisy” you would have to point out, in addition to false statements of fact, just what was hypocritical, indignant, or invective. Word by word. Then everyone may listen to you, see that you are sober, and analyze the relative merits of you and your tone versus that of those who disdain you and indeed even call for your censure. These calls would look unreasonable IF you could list any such hypocrisy, indignation, invective or falsehood. But you can’t, or you would.
Certainly “temper tantrums are not a substitute for thought” nor for “integrity”. But there’s no evidence anyone here is angry - maybe annoyed at having to defend Charter rights or universal human rights against an abusive person totally ignorant of same.
This is 2007 not 1650, John. You can’t call the Star Chamber on us.
Maybe there’s been “injurious accusation” but obviously we don’t see it to be “without merit” nor deny you the right to defend your views or position. All we seek to deny you is the right to harass, intimidate, attack, silence, chill and sue those who are merely rude to you. Yes, rudeness is the correct word for accusations of political bias and abuse of positions of trust and power over others. It’s not malice since all they want is not to be subject to you, nor to have others believe the injustifiable claims you make.
What you have said about your opponents is far worse than what they said about you. You have called them liars. You have called them indignant. You claim they use invective, which seems to be a slur. To state, for instance, that you are violent, is not invective, it is the product of a sober analysis of the use of power you espouse.
Your case has no merit. It appears that you are merely bullying others and expecting to get away with it. Including some who’ve stood up for you, for instance, excusing your absurd behaviour by opening the possibility that you are merely drunk - not just drunk with the power of lawyers and access to the media, as you may be.
You would be well advised to stop arguing, John. You’re clearly up against your intellectual and ethical superiors in this particular blog.
Paulitics | 08-Dec-07 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
John Write wrote above that:
“anyone else who really matters or cares to read the exchange on this particular blog [and I doubt that there are many], they will likely come to the conclusion that everyone else has contributed, with few exceptions, nothing more than hyperbole hurled under the cloak of anonymity and under the guise of free speech.”
Oh really, John? Remember when you wrote:
“each one of those who posted the comments have now, on their own advice, taken them down or altered them, because in the end they knew you cannot make unfounded or defamatory claims about a person or company.”?
Is my concern over your falsification for my reason for changing my post “hyperbole”? I notice that I’ve asked you now at least three times about this and you’ve artfully either dodged the question every time or ignored it every time.
john wright | 09-Dec-07 at 9:24 am | Permalink
Paulitics…
I’m terribly sorry if I misrepresented the reason why you altered the blog… you are absolutely right — you altered it gratuitously and it is appreciated very much. I unreservedly withdraw the remark:“each one of those who posted the comments have now, on their own advice, taken them down or altered them, because in the end they knew you cannot make unfounded or defamatory claims about a person or company.” Thank you for your attention to this and I’m sorry to cause you any inconvenience or trouble in this regard.
Best regards.
RJ | 09-Dec-07 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Wow, JW. I didn’t think you had it in you. You just went up a significant notch in my estimation.
John Wright | 09-Dec-07 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
I’m sorry that I didn’t respond earlier. I should have corrected the record as soon as you pointed it out.
Best regards.