'Public' had nothing to do with airport study

By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | Wednesday, August 3, 2005 10:52 PM PDT ∞

To read the large, bold headline on the top of the front page of the July 26 North County Times, you'd think a new poll ---- or perhaps even another special election ---- had been held on the future of San Diego's regional airport needs.

"Public says Miramar is the answer."

In truth, the sentiment that MCAS Miramar should be converted to civilian use was the conclusion not of the public, but of a small group of about 700 area residents who got together for an Internet discussion of the future of Lindbergh Field.

But this is about more than a bad headline (because the good Lord above knows I've written plenty of those in my time), it's about how often we as a culture misrepresent what public sentiment really is.

While many of the participants in this online discussion were simply residents and not government officials or business leaders, they were all, obviously, residents with an interest in the future of San Diego's regional airport. Most likely, a strong interest ---- people with lukewarm feelings on a subject rarely go to the trouble of logging into a Web site to take part in a discussion they don't really care about.

So whatever else this group was, representative of public sentiment isn't it. This group was no more a scientific reading of the public's desires on San Diego's future airport than our daily "polls" I post on NCTimes.com in my capacity as assistant online editor.

In both of these models, the fact that only those who opt in to the process have their voices heard undermines any claim to representing public opinion. A true poll ---- necessary before we start saying the "public" does or doesn't think or say anything ---- picks people at random. And with more and more people declining to answer pollsters' questions, even the accuracy of legitimate polls is in serious question ---- as we saw in the 2004 election when exit polls were all over the map.

Still, when a poll on the airport was conducted in the spring, it was undoubtedly a more accurate reading of the public's mood. And in that poll, the public wasn't yet convinced we needed a new airport at all ---- much less where it should be.

Which brings us back to the point that the public has not yet had a very necessary discussion with its elected officials on whether a new airport is indeed needed. Local business interests, including this newspaper, certainly seem eager for a new airport, as do regional planners. But do San Diego County residents themselves want all the additional growth the proposed new airport is supposed to bring with it?

Closing thought: Any time an advocacy group starts in on the need to "educate" the public, you can be sure a full discussion of all relevant facts is the last thing on its members' minds. As I pointed out, we've yet to even have a serious, public debate on the need to replace Lindbergh. Perhaps we might have that before the propaganda begins.

Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at (760) 740-5424 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.