HKU POP releases the results of Policy Address first follow-up survey and people’s appraisal of local news mediaBack
Press Release on October 17, 2017
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
| Detailed Findings (People's Appraisal of the Local News Media) |
Special Announcements
1. From July 2017, apart from sampling landline numbers to conduct opinion surveys, the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has also added mobile numbers to the sampling frame. After three months of testing, in October 2017, POP formalized the use of mixed samples as its standard for regular opinion surveys. The figures released today by POP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples, while “effective response rate” is continued to be used to describe the survey’s contact information. As for the weighting method, a two-step protocol is used. First, both the landline and mobile samples have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2016 year-end, and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution as well as economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. After that, the mobile sample was rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample, and then mixed together to produce the final results. This weighting method has proved to be feasible after three months of testing, but POP will continue to review and enhance it, and keep the public informed.
2. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) the raw data of regular rating surveys of current CE Carrie Lam, former CEs CH Tung, Donald Tsang and CY Leung, along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of Carrie Lam’s first Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 34 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it drastically drops by 16 percentage points to positive 18 percentage points, while satisfaction rating slightly drops by 1.8 marks to 60.6. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned somewhat negative, and people who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address may hold a more negative view. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at positive 28 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 31 percentage points compared to the last Address delivered by CY Leung early this year, which is at record high since 2007. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction and the results will be released in a month’s time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen. The follow-up survey interviewed 508 Hong Kong people by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.0 and net value needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 61%.
Meanwhile, POP interviewed 1,005 Hong Kong people between 3 and 4 October 2017 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey finds that compared to half a year ago, the general credibility rating of the news media didn’t change much and the latest figure is 5.77 marks while people’s net satisfaction with press freedom has decreased by 9 percentage points to positive 15 percentage points. Among various types of news media, television and the internet remain to be people’s main sources of news. In terms of performance satisfaction, people are most satisfied with the performance of the radio, with net satisfaction standing at positive 40 percentage points. Television comes next, with net satisfaction standing at positive 29 percentage points, yet decreased significantly by 11 percentage points. Overall speaking, people’s net satisfaction with the performance of the news media in general now stands at positive 31 percentage points. Besides, more people think the media have given full play to press freedom, but the net value of positive 10 percentage points is a record low since this survey item began in September 1997. At the same time, people also think that the media misused or abused press freedom. Besides, 30% and 40% consider the media responsible and irresponsible in their reporting respectively. Meanwhile, 53% believe Hong Kong’s news media have practiced self-censorship, another 33% think the opposite, giving a net satisfaction of positive 20 percentage points, mainly because of their hesitation to criticize the Central Government, the net value is positive 41 percentage points which is a record high since 2000. The percentage of those who thought the media have scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government is also higher than those who thought otherwise, and the net value is positive 7 percentage points. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net satisfaction rates need another calculation. The response rate of the rating survey is 60%.
Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used.
[3] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.
Policy Address First Follow-up Survey
[4] The sample size of this survey is 508 successful interviews, not 508 x 60.8% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[5] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures and net values needs another calculation. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state “sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-2.0, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level”.
People’s Appraisal of Local News Media
[6] The sample size of the survey on people’s appraisal of local news media is 1,005 successful interviews, not 1,005 x 59.5% response rate.
[7] “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state “sampling error of rating not more than +/-0.17 marks, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and sampling error of net satisfaction rates not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level”.
I. Policy Address First Follow-up Survey
Background
Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. In 1998, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such instant polls which measure people’s instant reactions would be repeated later by a follow-up survey which measure people’s more matured reactions. We believe this is the correct way to study public opinion. In 2008, we further split our instant survey into two. In our first survey, we measure people’s overall appraisal of the Policy Address, their rating of the Policy Address, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong’s future, and CE’s popularity. One to two days later, we would conduct our first follow-up survey to study any change in people’s satisfaction of the Policy Address. The findings of this year’s instant survey were already released on October 11 and 12. Today, we release the results of our first follow-up survey.
Latest Figures
POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address follow-up survey. From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from age, gender and education, economic activity status is now also taken into account when adjusting data. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2016 year-end, the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and the economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. The mobile sample has also been rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:
|
Year of survey |
Date of survey |
Overall sample size |
Response rate* |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[8] |
|
2017 (Oct) Follow-up |
12-13/10/17 |
508 |
60.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Oct) Instant |
11/10/17 |
673 |
63.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Jan) Follow-up |
19-20/1/17 |
513 |
68.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Jan) Instant |
18/1/17 |
664 |
67.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Follow-up |
14-15/1/16 |
514 |
65.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Instant |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Follow-up |
15-16/1/15 |
500 |
65.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Instant |
14/1/15 |
640 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Follow-up |
16-17/1/14 |
519 |
68.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Instant |
15/1/14 |
1,017 |
66.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 Follow-up |
17-18/1/13 |
530 |
66.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 Instant |
16/1/13 |
1,021 |
68.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 Follow-up |
13-14/10/11 |
520 |
65.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 Instant |
12/10/11 |
1,032 |
65.6% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 Follow-up |
14-16/10/10 |
507 |
64.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 Instant |
13/10/10 |
1,020 |
66.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 Follow-up |
15-17/10/09 |
508 |
70.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 Instant |
14/10/09 |
1,007 |
71.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 Follow-up |
17-19/10/08 |
505 |
70.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2008 Instant |
15/10/08 |
1,011 |
74.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2007 Instant |
10/10/07 |
1,023 |
69.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2006 Instant |
11/10/06 |
1,027 |
60.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 Instant |
12/10/05 |
914 |
66.1% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 Instant |
12/1/05 |
1,034 |
66.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2004 Instant |
7/1/04 |
1,040 |
67.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2003 Instant |
8-9/1/03 |
1,259 |
68.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2001 Instant |
10/10/01 |
1,051 |
66.0% |
+/-3% |
|
2000 Instant |
11/10/00 |
1,059 |
69.7% |
+/-3% |
|
1999 Instant |
6/10/99 |
888 |
54.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1998 Instant |
7/10/98 |
1,494 |
56.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1997 Instant |
8/10/97 |
1,523 |
61.5% |
+/-3% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[8] Calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Results of the follow-up surveys together with the instant polls of the two Policy Addresses in 2017 are tabulated below:
|
|
1/2017 |
10/2017 |
||||
|
Instant survey [9] |
Follow-up survey |
Change |
Instant survey [10] |
Follow-up survey |
Latest Change |
|
|
Date of survey |
18/1/17 |
19-20/1/17 |
-- |
11/10/17 |
12-13/10/17 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
664 |
513 |
-- |
673 |
508 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
67.1% |
68.4% |
-- |
63.5% |
60.8% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
-- |
Finding |
Finding and error [11] |
-- |
|
Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate [12] |
34% |
33+/-4% |
-1% |
48% |
43+/-4% |
-5%[13] |
|
Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate [12] |
29% |
36+/-4% |
+7%[13] |
14% |
24+/-4% |
+10%[13] |
|
Net value |
5% |
-3+/-7% |
-8%[13] |
34% |
18+/-7% |
-16%[13] |
|
Mean value [12] |
3.0 (Base=431) |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=456) |
-0.1 |
3.5 (Base=466) |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=451) |
-0.2[13] |
|
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks) |
52.3 |
48.8+/-2.4 |
-3.5[13] |
62.4 |
60.6+/-2.0 |
-1.8 |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[9] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 512.
[10] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 526.
[11] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[12] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[13] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Our latest survey revealed that 43% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 24% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 18 percentage points. The mean score is 3.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 60.6 marks.
Respondents’ appraisals of Carrie Lam’s policy direction are tabulated below:
|
Date of survey |
15-16/1/15 |
14-15/1/16 |
19-20/1/17 |
12-13/10/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
500 |
514 |
513 |
508 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
65.7% |
65.8% |
68.4% |
60.8% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [14] |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rate of CY Leung’s / Carrie Lam’s policy direction [15] |
24%[16] |
22% |
37%[16] |
50+/-4% |
+13%[16] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of CY Leung’s / Carrie Lam’s policy direction [15] |
52%[16] |
54% |
40%[16] |
22+/-4% |
-18%[16] |
|
Net value |
-27%[16] |
-31% |
-3%[16] |
28+/-7% |
+31%[16] |
|
Mean value [15] |
2.5[16] (Base=483) |
2.4 (Base=487) |
2.8[16] (Base=492) |
3.4+/-0.1 (Base=465) |
+0.6[16] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[14] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[15] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[16] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
As for people’s satisfaction with Carrie Lam’s policy direction, 50% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 22% were not satisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 28 percentage points. The mean score is 3.4, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general.
II. People’s Appraisal of Local News Media
POP today releases via the “POP SITE” the latest figures of people’s appraisal of local news media. From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from age, gender and education, economic activity status is now also taken into account when adjusting data. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2016 year-end, the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and the economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. The mobile sample has also been rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Effective sample size |
Effective response rate |
Sampling error of percentages[17] |
|
3-4/10/2017 |
1,005 |
59.5% |
+/-3% |
[17] Calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
Recent figures are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
11-14/4/16 |
19-22/9/16 |
10-12/4/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base [18] |
1,006 |
1,012 |
1,001 |
1,005 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.0% |
72.4% |
72.3% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[19] |
-- |
|
Credibility rating of the local news media in general |
5.87 |
5.66[21] |
5.69 |
5.77+/-0.17 |
+0.08 |
|
Freedom of the press in HK: Satisfaction rate [20] |
46% |
45% |
55%[21] |
47+/-4% |
-8%[21] |
|
Freedom of the press in HK: Dissatisfaction rate [20] |
33% |
39%[21] |
31%[21] |
32+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
13% |
7% |
24%[21] |
15+/-8% |
-9%[21] |
|
Mean value[20] |
3.1 (Base=592) |
3.0 (Base=531) |
3.3[21] (Base=649) |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=524) |
-0.1 |
|
Perceived the local news media to be responsible in their reporting[20] |
35% |
32% |
33% |
30+/-4% |
-3% |
|
Perceived the local news media to be irresponsible in their reporting[20] |
29% |
35%[21] |
36% |
40+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Net value |
6% |
-3%[21] |
-3% |
-10+/-7% |
-7% |
|
Mean value[20] |
3.0 (Base=603) |
2.9 (Base=609) |
2.9 (Base=569) |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=499) |
-0.1 |
|
Perceived that the local news media had given full play to the freedom of speech |
60% |
56% |
62%[21] |
52+/-4% |
-10%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had not given full play to the freedom of speech |
32% |
35% |
28%[21] |
42+/-4% |
+14%[21] |
|
Net value |
29% |
21%[21] |
34%[21] |
10+/-8% |
-24%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had misused/abused the freedom of press |
55% |
52% |
61%[21] |
56+/-4% |
-5%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had not misused/abused the freedom of press |
32% |
37%[21] |
27%[21] |
33+/-4% |
+6%[21] |
|
Net value |
22% |
16% |
34%[21] |
23+/-8% |
-11%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had practiced self-censorship |
52% |
49% |
51% |
53+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Perceived that the local news media had not practiced self-censorship |
31% |
31% |
30% |
33+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Net value |
21% |
18% |
22% |
20+/-8% |
-2% |
|
Perceived that the local news media had scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government |
47% |
49% |
44%[21] |
51+/-4% |
+7%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had no scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government |
48% |
42%[21] |
47%[21] |
44+/-4% |
-3% |
|
Net value |
-1% |
7% |
-4%[21] |
7+/-8% |
+11%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had scruples when criticizing the Central Government |
63% |
57%[21] |
58% |
67+/-4% |
+9%[21] |
|
Perceived that the local news media had no scruples when criticizing the Central Government |
27% |
31% |
33% |
25+/-4% |
-8%[21] |
|
Net value |
36% |
26%[21] |
25% |
41+/-8% |
+16%[21] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[18] Starting from 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 515 to 562, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[19] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state “sampling error of rating not more than +/-0.17 mark, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and sampling error of net satisfaction rates not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[20] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[21] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Results of latest survey showed that, on a scale of 0-10, the latest credibility rating of the Hong Kong news media in general was 5.77 marks. Moreover, 47% of the respondents were satisfied with the freedom of the press in Hong Kong while 32% were dissatisfied, net satisfaction at positive 15 percentage points. The mean value is 3.2, meaning in between “half-half” and “quite satisfied”. 30% perceived the local news media to be responsible in their reporting, 40% regarded the local news media as irresponsible, giving a net value of negative 10 percentage points. The mean value is 2.8, meaning in between “half-half” and “quite irresponsible”. 52% believed the local news media had given full play to the freedom of speech, net value at positive 10 percentage points, but at the same time 56% said they had misused or abused the freedom of press, net value at positive 23 percentage points. Besides, 53% of the respondents thought the local news media had practised self-censorship while 33% perceived the contrary, giving a net value of positive 20 percentage points. 51% thought they had scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government, with a net value of positive 7 percentage points. 67% thought they had scruples when criticizing the Central Government, net value at positive 41 percentage points. The results of other questions such as people’s main source of news and their satisfaction on individual news media are shown below:
|
Date of survey |
11-14/4/16 |
19-22/9/16 |
10-12/4/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base [22] |
1,006 |
1,012 |
1,001 |
1,005 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.0% |
72.4% |
72.3% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[23] |
-- |
|
People’s main source of news: Television |
77%[25] |
74% |
75% |
79+/-4% |
+4% |
|
People’s main source of news: Internet |
48% |
59%[25] |
59% |
60+/-4% |
+1% |
|
People’s main source of news: Newspaper |
43%[25] |
47% |
42%[25] |
54+/-4% |
+12%[25] |
|
People’s main source of news: Radio |
21% |
26%[25] |
20%[25] |
32+/-4% |
+12%[25] |
|
People’s main source of news: Friends |
11% |
14% |
11% |
17+/-3% |
+6%[25] |
|
Perceived that television was the most trustworthy source |
39% |
33%[25] |
42%[25] |
38+/-4% |
-4% |
|
Perceived that radio was the most trustworthy source |
15% |
13% |
14% |
17+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Perceived that newspaper was the most trustworthy source |
15% |
15% |
17% |
15+/-3% |
-2% |
|
Perceived that internet was the most trustworthy source |
13% |
17%[25] |
15% |
14+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Perceived that family member was the most trustworthy source |
5% |
5% |
2%[25] |
4+/-2% |
+2% |
|
Satisfaction rate of radio[24] |
56% |
51%[25] |
56%[25] |
54+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of radio[24] |
8% |
13%[25] |
11% |
14+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
49% |
37%[25] |
45%[25] |
40+/-6% |
-5% |
|
Mean value[24] |
3.7 (Base=483) |
3.5[25] (Base=503) |
3.6 (Base=479) |
3.6+/-0.1 (Base=464) |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rate of television[24] |
53% |
49% |
57%[25] |
53+/-4% |
-4% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of television[24] |
18% |
24%[25] |
18%[25] |
24+/-4% |
+6%[25] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
35% |
26%[25] |
40%[25] |
29+/-7% |
-11%[25] |
|
Mean value[24] |
3.4 (Base=617) |
3.3 (Base=538) |
3.4 (Base=522) |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=554) |
-0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rate of internet[24] |
35% |
38% |
36% |
39+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of internet[24] |
15% |
18% |
22% |
20+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
20%[25] |
20% |
14% |
19+/-7% |
+5% |
|
Mean value[24] |
3.3 (Base=494) |
3.3 (Base=431) |
3.2 (Base=470) |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=410) |
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rate of newspapers[24] |
36% |
33% |
37% |
38+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of newspapers[24] |
22% |
29%[25] |
29% |
27+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
14% |
4%[25] |
8% |
11+/-7% |
+3% |
|
Mean value[24] |
3.2 (Base=544) |
3.0[25] (Base=513) |
3.1 (Base=491) |
3.1+/-0.1 (Base=490) |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rate of magazines[24] |
14% |
13% |
10% |
13+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of magazines[24] |
45%[25] |
38%[25] |
46%[25] |
41+/-4% |
-5%[25] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
-30%[25] |
-25% |
-36%[25] |
-28+/-6% |
+8%[25] |
|
Mean value[24] |
2.5 (Base=509) |
2.5 (Base=464) |
2.4 (Base=386) |
2.5+/-0.1 (Base=430) |
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rate of news media in general [24] |
51%[25] |
43%[25] |
47% |
48+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of news media in general [24] |
12%[25] |
20%[25] |
19% |
18+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
39%[25] |
23%[25] |
28% |
31+/-6% |
+3% |
|
Mean value[24] |
3.4 (Base=606) |
3.2[25] (Base=546) |
3.3 (Base=700) |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=520) |
-- |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[22] Starting from 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 498 to 567, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[23] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state “sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and that of net satisfaction rates not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[24] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[25] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Results of the survey also showed that, 79% and 60% of the respondents claimed their main sources of news were television and internet respectively, while 38% thought the news reported by the former channel was the most trustworthy. Regarding people’s appraisal of various news channels, 54% of the respondents were satisfied with the radio, whereas 53% were satisfied with the television. Net satisfactions of these two channels were positive 40 and 29 percentage points, and their mean values were 3.6 and 3.3 respectively, meaning in between “half-half” and “quite satisfied”. Comparatively speaking, people’s satisfaction with the internet and printed media was lower, as the respective satisfaction rates of the internet, newspaper and magazine were 39%, 38% and 13% only, and their net satisfactions stand at positive 19, positive 11 and negative 28 percentage points, mean values at 3.3, 3.1 and 2.5 respectively, meaning in between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” for the former two, and in between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” for the latter. All in all, the latest satisfaction rate of the above news media in general was 48%, net satisfaction at positive 31 percentage points, and the mean value is 3.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied”.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Wai-Kin Lee.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of Carrie Lam’s first Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 34 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it drastically drops by 16 percentage points to positive 18 percentage points, while satisfaction rating slightly drops by 1.8 marks to 60.6. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned somewhat negative, and people who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address may hold a more negative view. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at positive 28 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 31 percentage points compared to the last Address delivered by CY Leung early this year, which is at record high since 2007. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction and the results will be released in a month’s time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen.
On the other hand, compared to half a year ago, the general credibility rating of the news media didn’t change much and the latest figure is 5.77 marks while people’s net satisfaction with press freedom has decreased by 9 percentage points to positive 15 percentage points. Among various types of news media, television and the internet remain to be people’s main sources of news. In terms of performance satisfaction, people are most satisfied with the performance of the radio, with net satisfaction standing at positive 40 percentage points. Television comes next, with net satisfaction standing at positive 29 percentage points, yet decreased significantly by 11 percentage points. Overall speaking, people’s net satisfaction with the performance of the news media in general now stands at positive 31 percentage points. Besides, more people think the media have given full play to press freedom, but the net value of positive 10 percentage points is a record low since this survey item began in September 1997. At the same time, people also think that the media misused or abused press freedom. Besides, 30% and 40% consider the media responsible and irresponsible in their reporting respectively. Meanwhile, 53% believe Hong Kong’s news media have practiced self-censorship, another 33% think the opposite, giving a net satisfaction of positive 20 percentage points, mainly because of their hesitation to criticize the Central Government, the net value is positive 41 percentage points which is a record high since 2000. The percentage of those who thought the media have scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government is also higher than those who thought otherwise, and the net value is positive 7 percentage points. As for the reasons affecting people’s appraisal of the press, readers can make their own judgment after reading the list of events archived in our “Opinion Daily” feature page in our “POP Site”.
Future Release (Tentative)
