The experience left me with some takeaways:

1) Social media are a powerful populist tool.

The reaction on Sina Weibo and elsewhere online surprised me, in part, because the survey, in its 11th year, had found similarly high levels of trust in government and most other institutions in China, but had not prompted anything like the level of discussion that played out in the past week.

A likely explanation for this is the rise of social media as a powerful populist force over the past 12 months. I’ve talked about this and blogged about it often, but nothing brought the point home so clearly to me than the discussion online this week.

Consider: Sina Weibo has gone from a few million to almost 75 million users since Edelman released its previous Trust Barometer survey early in 2010.

Its success, and the success of similar home-grown social media platforms, may reflect the fact that Twitter, Facebook and other foreign social-networking sites are blocked in China, so Chinese microblogging services have become a popular alternative source of information. Its labyrinthine conversation threads makes it almost impossible, short of shutting down the entire platform, for the government to censor effectively.

2) Everyone on social media has opinions, and many don’t let the facts get in the way when expressing them.

People post crazy things. For example, more than one netizen suggested that there was some ulterior motive behind the Trust survey findings. Edelman is trying to curry favor with the Chinese government to get more work from government agencies, one post stated. Or, a variation, the government sponsored the survey, as others said.

Given the results about government in places like the U.S., where trust is low, and Russia where it is very low, I can’t help but ask the people who offered these thoughts why Edelman would be less interested in government elsewhere and so interested in it in China? For the record, Edelman does no work for the Chinese government, and the government had no involvement in the research.

I wish everyone who took the time to post comments had also taken the time to review the full global research. The study, its methodology and the full context have been available on Edelman's web site. They are worth a look by anyone who’s seriously interested in understanding this research. The full China-specific research data will be released after Chūn Jié, by the way.

3) Social media are a powerful demonstration of the gap between popular opinion and the opinions of urban elites in China.

While the Trust Barometer does not explore why people respond to the survey questions as they do, it is reasonable to conclude that the populist voice represented by comments on social media are not in synch with the opinions of those surveyed by Edelman.

For those who have not seen the survey methodology, here is how the research was done.

Phone surveys of 375 people in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou were conducted between October 11 and November 28, 2010. A total of 5,075 people were interviewed worldwide, and the survey had more than 140 questions about various institutions and industries.

The people interviewed were between 25 and 64 years old and fit into a distinct category generally known as “informed publics.” These are people who are college-educated, in the top 25% of income by age group, and follow news media and policy issues at least several times a week. Well-educated, wealthy and well-informed: In the U.S., for example, this group represents 15% - 20% of the total population.

We have been surveying this global population in our Trust Barometer since its inception in 2001, because they are more attuned to business news and information and, as we have seen from other studies, are more likely to act on their beliefs through purchase behavior, spreading “word-of-mouth,” and supporting or opposing regulation based on their beliefs. Typically, this is the population that adopts an opinion or action earlier and then influences the general population. Therefore, we think they are a good indication of where “informed opinion” is heading.

These people do NOT, however, reflect popular opinion in China. They reflect the opinions of people in their demographic group.

Popular opinion in China is rarely studied, mainly because of the practical difficulties of getting a representative sample of a highly diverse population of 1.3 billion people. It’s important to note that the Edelman study is independent, well-established, follows the rigorous academic rules for conducting social research, and is statistically representative of the opinions of the group surveyed.

So, an interesting thing to discuss, and for journalists to explore, is the gap between the opinions of those surveyed and those reflected in social media.

I would like to read some lively social media discussions, and maybe a few serious news stories, that try to answer questions like these:

-- Why do such a large percentage of college-educated, financially successful people in China who spend a lot of time keeping up with business and public affairs news trust government and the other traditional institutions of Chinese society?

-- Why don’t the people who express opinions on social media trust those institutions?

-- What are the implications of the gap?

As I said, the Edelman Trust Barometer is not designed to answer questions like those, but it should stimulate debate among people who think they know the answers.

And, it seems, there are a lot of them using social media in China these days.