Political analysts across the nation expressed alarm that a recent Neilsen poll has revealed that 69% of Americans do not trust American public opinion. Analysts also expressed concern that polls reveal that 57% of Americans no longer believe computer spellcheckers, medical warning labels, or the sentencing decisions of TV’s American Idol judges.

Combined, these recent poll numbers confirm that the American public holds itself in the lowest public standing since the Neilsen organization began polling.
Harold Frum of the White Flint institute explained:

“Polling data reveals that public trust in politicians, broadcast media figures, and executive bankers has declined every year since the first television news broadcast. Now, new data shows public distrust has spread to the point that most Americans don’t trust themselves, their pollsters, and even their own pet dog.

Dr. Frum explained further:

“The public distrust of itself may be a natural reaction to the fact that Americans see other Americans voting for politicians, watching TV commentators, and using the ATM machines of Wall Street banks. This leads them to look upon their fellow citizens with a skeptical disdain.

If these trends continue we may see a day when individual Americans do even not trust their own cell phones.”

Nielsen pollsters claim that the American public’s declining opinion of itself also stems from the public belief that politicians, bankers, and media personnel belong to American-raised, English-speaking families, that have done little to regulate their members’ work habits.

Dr. Harold Frum explained how unpopularity can spread to the public at large:

“There is plenty of blame to go around for the mess our public opinion is in.

For example, our survey respondents are convinced that MBA professors created greedy Wall Street bankers by putting extra credit ‘grading default swaps’ on graduate homework assignments “

Dr. Frum’s “special assistant”, Todd Racher explained further:

“Everyone knows politicians are people whose personalities, somehow, got stuck in the middle of somebody’s high school yearbook. So when the average person reads about the politicians they blame the high school teachers, their once-favorite cheerleader, and the dorky kids that tried to enforce the cafeteria rules.”

Todd Racher’s “regular assistant” explained ‘extra’ further:

“When it comes to the obnoxious, intrusive, reckless, attention grabbing members of the media: polls indicate that the public actually can imagine what these people’s parents are like. So the blame radiates back up the family tree.“

Analysts Disagree Over Polling Data

Analysts from Virginia’s Fair Oaks Research Institute posted their own interpretation of Neilsen’s data result on their website:

“Multivariate data analysis indicates that public opinion is ‘highly correlated’ with its own internal attitude. We think, what happens, is that people see the results of public opinion polls and come to believe:

‘those people out there are just complete idiots’.

Then, over time and in the aggregate, the “those people-out-there-are-idiots” message creates a feedback loop which leaves in its wake the following message for each individual American citizen:

“You know I am, and most of my friends are, complete Dilbert-headed dolts”.

Harold Frum of the White Flint institute wrote in to disagree:

“We disagree. Data replication tests indicate, that with ninety five per cent confidence and five percent fear of laying an egg on our face, that the individual American never blames his or her own self.

Of course this interpretation doesn’t apply to Catholics during lent.”

The Fair Oaks institute wrote in to re-disagree:

“We disagree. Eventually every person, who is part of the system, eventually will be forced to stand in front a mirror and conclude that he or she is a Dilbert-headed dolt or a Charley Brown-shirted sucker for “validating the system.”

The Fair Oaks institute also noted:

“If the American people really were untrustworthy, the opinion polling data, which this whole dispute is based on, would be no good.”

Henry Lord Neilsen of “Neilsen polling” quickly posted the following website comment:

“The dispute between these two institutes validates our result. Both groups have lost all trust in each other’s analysis without, even, critical interference from the media.

However, we may have to bring in lawyers to protect the reputation of Neilsen polling data.”
Mr. Neislen’s assistant, Lady Neilsen in eternal waiting, quickly posted the following explanatory note on the Neilsen website:

“Our data does not cover lawyers. That is, polling data reveals that the public cannot classify lawyers as human breathing citizens; particularly in a country that forces American idol performers to appear before the judges — without being given the right to remain silent.”