When I blogged yesterday about the Telegraaf reporting on the latest Eurobarometer poll, I did not find any other stories related to it. The key fact that the survey actually took place in April was not reported, and more importantly, most of the key findings had already been published in June. Yet the Telegraaf presented it as new information, which it definitely was not. Then again, the Telegraaf is not exactly known as the pinnacle of journalistic excellence, as it is more of a tabloid (in content if not in form). A newspaper of similar calibre, the Algemeen Dagblad, also reported the euro data, but at least added that these results were contradicted by a Dutch poll last month, in which 44% of Dutchmen said they missed the guilder "very much." Well done AD? Not really. The poll itself was conducted on the internet, i.e. by a self-selecting group. This means the results cannot be taken to be representative of the population as a whole.

I decided to have another look today to see if there is more reporting of the new old Eurobarometer poll. Using Google's news search I managed to locate a batch of stories about this. Some were better in their reporting than others. In the Helsingin Sanomat the data gathering period is mentioned. I also found a link to a pro-Europe site called EurActiv.com, which does mention prominently the data gathering period but still calls it a "new Eurobarometer poll." Technically that is true, but that's missing the point.

But most of the stories did not mention this salient fact. Google found this Irish newssite with a summation of key facts about Britain. Then there was this story in the Guardian, which does not mention the data gathering period either. It does, of course, put a heavily pro-EU tilt on the data, giving plenty of space to EU-boosters to make their case, while not reporting any dissenting voices. Then again, mistaking the Guardian for a serious newspaper is hard to do these days. Finally there is the Financial Times, which actually did better. The FT too omitted to mention the survey period and the highlights that were released in June, but at least this article added plenty of data that had not been released in the highlights before.

Still, this haphazard survey of reports shows that there's a lot of poor reporting going on. Most crucially, most of these pieces fail to mention that the data are almost six months old, and that most of the key numbers had already been released in June. On the other hand, I don't want to make too much of this either. It'd be interesting to see whether this double news cycle also repeats itself if the headline numbers are less favorable to the EU and the euro. We'll have to wait till the next survey rolls around, for which the fieldwork should be going on right now. The highlights are likely to be published in December if last year's cycle is anything to go by.