You have to response to bellow post also I gave exaple of someone, who  already respond to this Fourm  POST by Will Data collection is key to enforcing a position on a given subject.  This position may be to disprove a current belief or to add proof to why it is a fact.  One of the main focuses in data correlation is to filter through large collections of collected data with the goal of finding instances where the collected data can further support your stance or viewpoint.   Once data has been attributed towards your goal, it has gone from being obtuse to usable. For instance, focus groups provide a multitude of members to get opinions about a given topic,(Ranjit Kumar, 2014, Research Methodology, pg 193). These opinions can be based on experience,  preference, or simply provide a sample group to demonstrate public opinion on a matter.   The downside to focus groups is that the choice of the group can be used to dissuade public opinion much like the public feels that many news groups are (Gallup, 2018, Americans See More News Bias).  Have you ever watched the news or a late night show and wondered why there are slack jawed yokels giving their opinion on a situation?  It's not that the news agency or show host didn't interview more intelligent people, it is that they purposefully left out the data that did not support their case or point of view.  Look at the Jimmy Kimmel Live skit on What's your Password, (Jimmy Kimmel, 2017, What's your Password?). In this skit, several people are interviewed, and every one of them is demonstrating a very poor personal policy in regards to password strength.  Many of them admitted what their password was on air, and some who didn't release it at first fell victim to basic phishing techniques.  Another shortfall to this method is where the groups are chosen from.  If you are trying to support a conservative concept, it is probably not a good idea to pull your focus group sampling from Los Angeles, or New York as these cities trend towards a more liberal nature and opinion.  For the references I used, there are both qualitative and quantitative references.  The Gallup article for instance included a pole of 19,196 adults from all 50 US states whom were 18 and older, (Gallup, 2018, Americans See More News Bias).  It also represents a secondary source as the data collected from it was provided by a mass media source being Gallup and its data collection of analytics. The Jimmy Kimmel reference on the other hand was a qualitative article in that the interviewer could ask about personal password protection methods in any way they wanted.  It wasn't focused in regards to the questions, but the finality was in support of the opinion that there are a large multitude of people who fail to use good password etiquette in their home.  It is also the example of a primary source in that the data collector is focused on proving that people are terrible with passwords.  As far as my paper goes, my primary so ...

1. You have to response to bellow post
also I gave exaple of someone, who already respond to this
Fourm
POST by Will
Data collection is key to enforcing a position on a given
subject. This position may be to disprove a current belief or to
add proof to why it is a fact. One of the main focuses in data
correlation is to filter through large collections of collected data
with the goal of finding instances where the collected data can
further support your stance or viewpoint. Once data has been
attributed towards your goal, it has gone from being obtuse to
usable.
For instance, focus groups provide a multitude of members to
get opinions about a given topic,(Ranjit Kumar, 2014, Research
Methodology, pg 193). These opinions can be based on
experience, preference, or simply provide a sample group to
demonstrate public opinion on a matter.
The downside to focus groups is that the choice of the group
can be used to dissuade public opinion much like the public
feels that many news groups are (Gallup, 2018, Americans See
More News Bias). Have you ever watched the news or a late
night show and wondered why there are slack jawed yokels
giving their opinion on a situation? It's not that the news
agency or show host didn't interview more intelligent people, it

2. is that they purposefully left out the data that did not support
their case or point of view. Look at the Jimmy Kimmel Live
skit on What's your Password, (Jimmy Kimmel, 2017, What's
your Password?). In this skit, several people are interviewed,
and every one of them is demonstrating a very poor personal
policy in regards to password strength. Many of them admitted
what their password was on air, and some who didn't release it
at first fell victim to basic phishing techniques.
Another shortfall to this method is where the groups are chosen
from. If you are trying to support a conservative concept, it is
probably not a good idea to pull your focus group sampling
from Los Angeles, or New York as these cities trend towards a
more liberal nature and opinion.
For the references I used, there are both qualitative and
quantitative references. The Gallup article for instance
included a pole of 19,196 adults from all 50 US states whom
were 18 and older, (Gallup, 2018, Americans See More News
Bias). It also represents a secondary source as the data
collected from it was provided by a mass media source being
Gallup and its data collection of analytics. The Jimmy Kimmel
reference on the other hand was a qualitative article in that the
interviewer could ask about personal password protection
methods in any way they wanted. It wasn't focused in regards
to the questions, but the finality was in support of the opinion
that there are a large multitude of people who fail to use good
password etiquette in their home. It is also the example of a
primary source in that the data collector is focused on proving
that people are terrible with passwords.
As far as my paper goes, my primary source will be myself
conducting interviews with different people both in public and

3. military organizations. For my secondary sources I will use
prior research articles relating to my subject pulled from the
APUs library such as " Broadhurst, Roderic (2006)
Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime" to
support the ongoing limitations in litigating cyber crimes.
References:
- Kumar, R. (2014), Research Methodology, SAGE publications
limited, g 193
- KImmel, J. (2017), What's your Password?, pulled from
https://youtu.be/UzvPP6_LRHc on 27 June 2018.
- Gallup (2018), Americans See More News Bias pulled from h
EXAMPLE
Will,
You make a great point about how the media twists
data in order to suit their needs. I have to admit, I thoroughly
enjoy watching the “man on the street” segments that go out and

4. ask people random questions to showcase just how little people
really know about a given subject. However, I always wonder
how many people they had to ask those questions to before they
got the responses they wanted. The problem with any type of
video that is posted with this type of aim is that it does not
provide the full context of the data that was gathered. They
show the parts that support their point while discarding
anything that hurts it. As entertaining as they may be, it
distorts the public’s perceptions on the subject and furthers the
rampant misinformation that comes out of news agencies that all
have some type of political leaning. If only we would stop
watching them, but it is just entertaining television. Let’s face
it though, that is ratings is really what it’s all about right?
Gregg
********* Now you have to response to will *******