|albert monteros on May 25 2010 at 02:29:12 PM
I like the survey. How did you come up with the names? Better if you have a separate article on the process of coming up with the survey. Thanks for always sharing valuable information to everyone. You are helping the world. Hope to have my article soon as my sharing to your group. God bless Reader's Digest.
|chinita on March 31 2010 at 04:28:28 PM |
Can you kindly explain how you conducted this survey? You don't even put how many respondents there were. And who suggested some of the jokers in the list? This is so not scientific!
|Asoka Palamakumbura on March 30 2010 at 09:43:23 PM
Articles never getting old Articles published in Reader’s Digest magazine about thirty years ago could read with interest even now. Recently I was resting after suffering from common cold. In order to avoid my loneliness I picked an old Reader’s Digest magazine and went through the contents and picked an article. I have a few old magazines. My random picking I have taken February 1957 magazine. This article was on a diary that Japanese soldier written during the Second World War in 1943. The article was ‘Corporal Kazumi Comes Home’ by Mutsumi Kurahashi. The Japanese soldier died and the diary was delivered to his daughter in Japan by an American lady in 1957. The daughter Mutsumi Kurahashi was 19 years old at that time describe how American lady named Miss Rose Wright visited her village and handed over the diary to her. Mutsumi Kurahashi’s father left her when she was four years old for the battle field. How her feeling about her father and the suffering her father underwent clearly describe this true story. People can read this article with interest even now though it happened 67 years ago. I would like to invite you to publish this article once again for preset readers. Asoka Palamakumbura Peradeniya Sri Lanka.
|Truthseeker on March 23 2010 at 10:01:05 PM |
@ Toto. When I went over the order of merit, I noticed that among the presedentiables, Noynoy is the one situated at the upper bracket. On the other hand, the rest of the presidentiables including Villar are situated at the lower bracket. More conspicuous are Erap and Gibo at the bottom in the company of Hayden Co, Katrina Halili and the Marcoses. Does it mean @Toto that Noynoy's group is responsible for this propaganda machinations? By the way, I also noticed Jaime Zobel de Ayalas of the Ayala group of companies at the top. Maybe he is the financier,right? Please comment, I'm quite intrigued!
|Toto Onato on March 23 2010 at 03:54:29 PM
Things like this is part and parcel of creative PR campaign of organizations and personalities with both political and business interest. The trick is to find the names of these interest groups/personalities at the upper bracket of survey (not necessarily uppermost) so that target audiece will be influenced with such projection of credibility (being rated higher in alleged survey). In short it is symply a clever PR stroke. This type of propaganda is categorized also as black propaganda. They make it appear that it is Reader's Digest initiative when in truth and in fact, the same was commissioned (sponsored) by politicians, businessmen and media partner that you can find at the top 20 of that dubious survey. This PR release is part of election strategy among the protagonists namely: Noynoy Aquino; Manny Villar; Joseph Estrada;and Gibo Teodoro (w/ GMA flavor). It is actually a blessing that the more dignified and more credible Philippine personalities were not included in this sham survey which is nothing but an immoderate form of advertising and a pathethic attempt on immage building.
|elmantheman on March 23 2010 at 11:58:45 AM |
I haven't read yet of anyone of those in the list questioned the reliability of the said poll and agency. Even if you are number two, if your average is falling to the least trusted, and it's not shown, it gives an impression that you are the most, if not, more trustworthy (high perceived trustworthiness)! Is it all about that, impression and not the truth behind it? Shortcut to fame! And if you don't understand the poll, the title gives the impression that even the lowest on the list becomes trustworthy too. Search the net and find how some parties exploit their win, and some Lister who thought they're trustworthy too having their names mentioned there despite of their ranking or average score! The Digital Edge was the group who conducted the survey October 2009. It's an independent market research company in behalf of Readers' Digest. Perhaps we should also check on this company how it got the predetermined list. "The list was presented in random order over five screens ,..." Where? How was this list provided to respondents, were they invited inside a room with monitors from a caravan driven on certain area/s or placed on certain Universities? Even the number of respondents likely has failed to check online or ask the instructor what profession a "Hawker" is, thus garnering a DK% of 12, with a Mean of 4.44. Does this amounts to 200 hundred or less (because of DK%) of respondents who seemed to have impression that it's among the least trusted profession like the Politician? On other news sites, Calara of DLSU said, “...Most important, we are looking for someone who has kept their morals intact.” How can you have the idea whether their morals are intact or not when those who are more likely trusted people from the predetermined list has DK% 50 ? I think this survey is invalid. Make something else worth the penny of the subscribers. For example, The List of Filipinos who are in the field of Humanitarian and Philanthropy Locale and Abroad.
|elmantheman on March 23 2010 at 11:58:31 AM
The Reader's Digest Asia's introduced the poll on its front page by stating, "Philippines’ Most Trusted 2010" and the banner on the front page says, "Philippines, Who Do You TRUST? We reveal the exclusive results of our first ever Asian Trust poll!" The word TRUST was on a BIG CAPS and BOLD font, and the poll was left on small caps. The focus is on the word "trust" away from the word "poll". I read the term in other online news that the list was "predetermined" and the news site was proud of it's own news pillars who belong to the top 20 on "perceived trustworthiness". But it's interesting to note how the news site still found a need to re-interpret, if not, further interpret its RD Asia win, and how it tried to impress by magnifying its winners' rank by citing some of the lesser trusted individuals. What's the need of interpretation if this survey is not vague? Why limit the personalities to 80 (or 55 well known Philippines people mentioned above?)? Given that you are on top 10 or 50 spot and you don't mention that your average (Mean), even if it falls to the least trusted spot, 80 personalities magnify it on a positive note, again without actual giving the average score you got and the rate of people who do not know you, do the math!
|elmantheman on March 23 2010 at 11:58:00 AM |
"The objective of the research is to determine the level of trust people hold in certain individuals and professions." The title of the survey for me should be Trust Survey 2009 on CERTAIN individuals and profession included on a PREPARED List on certain Area/s of the Philippines, 2009. Every survey should put important info on the Title so the one reading it can measure how general or subjective or objective the survey or study whether it's qualitative or quantitative.
|elmantheman on March 23 2010 at 11:53:19 AM
I wil try to post later error msg: There was a problem while using XMLHTTP
|Jane Abao on March 22 2010 at 07:53:39 PM |
So this was a prepared list? How valid can you say then is this survey? Obviously, you took the professions as your focus so that you can say you represented a cross-section of society. But that does not work. You took the construct of TRUST so lightly not even considering that trustworthiness has to be proven again and again and that one act of mistrust can cause trust to fall. And how is this related to Reader's Digest Asia in its fight for its flagging popularity? I say, the more it has confirmed that it does not count to the public but only to its miniscule provincial readership that it prefers to fool.