Skip to main content it has been headlined in the MSM.
 While it does show the power of false advertising; the kind the "conservative" movement, its GOP shills along with its media bias department @ "Faux News" has been blanketing the country with for pretty much as long as they've been in business, it is factually cherry-picked; a manipulated, uninformed "truth" photo 6558ff70-5b75-4761-a919-ba680020d24d_zpsae15fac4.png

After seeing this latest meme; "overwhelmingly favored" being touted by the right as "truth" and even some opponents of the Pipeline repeating the language of the headlines giving it more credence, I took a look, and not being an expert on polling or the science of it I ask the simplest questions to test this phrase being tossed around as fact - Do the people being polled have the facts or not? And what were they really voting for; jobs or the Keystone pipeline?

Is this the truth or just another "conservative"/corporate spun up conclusion created to be added into the things we say in conversation first, and then come to accept without really questioning its veracity or the meaning of it?

Here is the ABC News/Washington Post poll (pdf):
Two-Thirds Back Keystone Pipeline; More See Jobs than Environmental Risk

It's true, on average without the facts known. Out of 1,002 people questioned (at least of the .00001% or whatever the % is, US population polled) more support the Keystone pipeline than oppose it, but without context is this question useful or misleading?

As you may know, there is a proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry oil from Canada to Texas. Do you think the U.S. government should or should not approve the building of this pipeline?

                Should            Should not             No opinion

3/2/14         65                    22                          13

6/17/12*     59                    18                          22

3/11/12**   57                    29                          14

*Washington Post only


Then there is this:
Do you think this pipeline would or would not [ITEM]? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

3/2/14 - Summary Table

   a. Create a significant number of jobs

           --------- Would ---------       ------- Would not -------            No

         NET Strongly Somewhat       NET Somewhat Strongly             op.

         85       62         24                10        4            6                    5

   b. Pose a significant risk to the environment

          --------- Would ---------       ------- Would not -------            No

         NET Strongly Somewhat       NET Somewhat Strongly             op.

          47     26           20               44      16            28                   9


a. Create a significant number of jobs

The job myth is trending. Exactly as the GOP operates their spin cycles to do

Here is the truth:

Experts: Keystone XL May Create Fewer Jobs Than Most Expect

Yet the first line of the article reads:

While most Americans support the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline..
And from the state dept. linked within:

State Department: Keystone XL Pipeline Would Only Create 35 Permanent Jobs - by Zoë Schlanger | Updated: 2/13/14 at 8:54 PM

But buried in the 11-chapter report (pdf) was a less sunny detail: the Keystone XL would create only 35 permanent jobs after the one or two years of construction jobs dry up.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 27-March 2, 2014, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect.
Out of 1,002 people polled at random 2/3rds believe that pipeline should be built yet 85% of these same people also believe the GOP/"conservative" lie:

The Keystone pipeline is a job creator - lie

- never mind that the "conservative" purveyors of this lie have continued their agenda of slashing jobs year after year; exploiting peoples fears of losing their jobs or homes or worse, (in this prolonged period of slow job growth), while lying about creating jobs, blocking any Jobs programs, all without the least compunction

So now the conclusion/headline becomes; "overwhelmingly favor" instead of something more along these lines:

American people deceived & taunted by false "conservative" job creation boom reported as guaranteed by Keystone pipeline project but aren't fooled by the devastating environmental impact it represents - and jobs with a fair living wage with it still a priority

nothing scientific by me here or anything, just trying to push back against the use of this untruth in our day to day language somehow.

Thank you for stopping by

P.S. This may have been covered already but I've been away for a bit. otoh until the polls show the reality of the jobs numbers it can't hurt repeating it - imo


Do Americans overwhelmingly favor the Keystone XL pipeline or favor investment in job creation?

9%3 votes
87%29 votes

| 33 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks Eric (7+ / 0-)

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 05:01:32 PM PDT

  •  Eric - wouldn't additional jobs be created at both (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antooo, AlexDrew

    ends of the pipeline?

    In addition to the pipeline construction project which totals more than $5 billion, wouldn't there be more jobs created at both ends of the pipeline? You can't just count the 35-50 people who work only on managing the pipeline, once it is built.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 05:11:18 PM PDT

    •  Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d, Onomastic

      ..for the Keystone XL Project Executive Summary
      January 2014:

      ES.4.3.4 Economic Activity During Operations
      Once the proposed Project enters service, operations would require approximately 50 total employees in the United States: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors. This small number would result in negligible impacts on population, housing, and public services in the proposed Project area.
      35 permanent jobs with an estimated 42,000 jobs during the 2 year construction phase

      Van Jones nailed it during a discussion on 'Crossfire' program.

      Ralph Reed, a conservative activist who founded the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said Jones’ claim is unfair because a long-anticipated report by the U.S. State Department says the project will create 42,000 jobs. Reed went on to say the report cleared the main argument against the project, that it’s bad for the environment.

      We are fact-checking claims from each pundit about the project. Here, we’ll focus on Jones’ claim about the project creating "35 permanent jobs."

       photo Capturetruemeter_zps4cd3efdc.png

      with apologies for mention of the white supremacist Reed in this comment

      •  Eric - but those are jobs directly related to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the actual pipeline. It does not address the jobs at each end of the pipeline.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:53:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Irrelivent when you take into account the number (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, Onomastic

          of good green living wage jobs would be created by replacing fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy sources.

          Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

          by RMForbes on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:21:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Those jobs at either end are part of the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ..42,00  estimate:

          The specific number of jobs at any location would result from the individual decisions of employers across the country affected by the proposed Project based on their labor needs, work backlog,
          jobs, would be supported in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
          All the information is at the link previously provided. It a good read for the information on a wide range of concerns
  •  So the good news is that while (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexDrew, angel d, RMForbes, Onomastic

    the American people overwhelmingly favor the pipeline, that they are wrong? That they have fallen for a lie put forth by the GOP?

    In the end, all that matters in politics is what people think, not what is the truth.

  •  To many Americans have lost the ability (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, angel d

    to think for themselves. We live in the information age and yet most people never take the time to learn the truth. Time after time I have asked questions of people I know and they get the answer wrong. Now these are not stupid people they just don't take the time to find out the facts for themselves. Far to easy to believe the dishonest Republican spin than it is to seek out the truth!

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 05:51:52 PM PDT

  •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that there will be less than a handful of permanent jobs from the pipeline.

    However, folks my age remember the lines at the gas stations and the economic ripples from gasoline shortages, and they buy the jobs argument.  They think that the Canadian supplies will shield the American economy from another gas shortage.

    Not that long ago, access to crude oil was crucial to our economic survival.

    I don't believe it but I'm in a tiny minority.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:58:01 PM PDT

    •  But today we have the technology to replace (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      much of our fossil fuel usage with sustainable renewable energy sources. Here in California we have two small companies producing enough advanced biofuels to fuel over 20,000 vehicles a day from sewage. Not to mention how much more we could produce from agricultural waste/manure and our garbage.

      If we produced advanced biofuels from our sewage alone in every community across our nation we could replace over 10% of our fossil fuel use with this source of biofuels alone. That would keep billions of our dollars here instead of sending it to offshore oil cartels and it would create thousands of good green living wage jobs in our local communities that could not be outsourced.

      Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

      by RMForbes on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:34:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site