This table shows the number of stories reported by the New York Times on Afghanistan in which a US government official was quoted.
Each row does not represent all stories but, rather, a sample of three constructed weeks of stories during that time period (IOW, all Afghanistan stories from three randomly selected Mondays, three randomly selected Tuesdays, etc.).
Would it be safe to simply say "overall, the New York Times quoted American government officials less than half of the time in its reports on Afghanistan during the three time periods"?
Or, should I (or could I even) also report a margin of error?
Were I to report a margin of error I don't know the actual population. Could I safely use a predicted population of 784 (since I'm using a sample of three constructed weeks to report on three months of content - or nine weeks to report on nine months overall - and I have 98 stories in that sample)?
Constructed week sampling is a form of stratified random sampling and it's been established elsewhere that three constructed weeks can be used to generalize six months of newspaper content, which is the reason I have three constructed weeks for each time period (more here: https://cphss.wustl.edu/Products/Documents/Papers_Luke_et_al_2011_How_much_is_enough_New_recommendations_for_using_constructed_week_sampling.pdf). Given that, would layering on something like a margin of error even be appropriate or should the numbers be taken "as is"? Can margins of errors be applied to non-human surveys?
Is there a different tool I should be using?
Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions or assistance!