What about this poll?

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, Jan. 5, 2007 11:58 a.m. EST

Poll: Majority Believe Iraq Coverage Biased


Most Americans are convinced that media coverage of the conflict in Iraq is inaccurate and portrays the situation as being worse than it actually is, a new survey shows.

According to the Gallup News Service, a December survey of a representative sample of 569 adult Americans revealed that fully 56 percent believe that major news media coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate while only 4 out of 10 Americans agree that it is accurate.

Moreover, the survey showed that by a 61 percent to 36 percent margin, those who feel that the Iraq coverage is inaccurate say it is because the media make the situation there appear worse than it actually is.

Responses from survey participants showed that two-thirds of Republicans believe that the news media's coverage of Iraq is both inaccurate and makes the situation there appear worse. Only one-quarter say that news media coverage is accurate.


On the other hand, a majority of Democrats (55 percent) say that news media coverage of the situation there is accurate, with most of the rest saying that it is inaccurate and biased toward making the situation there appear better than it really is.

Other survey results:


56 percent believe the news media provide an inaccurate account of the situation in Iraq while 41 percent see it as accurate.

35 percent believe the media makes the situation appear worse than it is, while only 20 percent think it makes the situation better than it is. Three percent had no opinion and 1 percent were unsure.


Broken down by party affiliation, barely 5 percent of Republicans think the media makes the situation appear better, while 25 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats take the position that it does.

Just 25 percent of Republicans think the coverage is accurate, but 42 percent of independents and as many as 55 percent of Democrats think it is accurate.
The survey results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,013 adults, ages 18 and older, conducted Dec. 18-20, 2006. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 569 adults who say the news media have been providing an inaccurate account of the situation in Iraq, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.


**********************************************************

All right, fellas, here's the question or questions being begged by the article:

1. What if it is true that the news is biased?
2. If it's true, isn't the media hiding behind freedom of speech in order to promote propaganda?
3. If they are propagandizing the war negatively, why would they do that? Do they want us to lose the war?
4. If the news of Iraq is biased negatively, doesn't that mean that Iraq is actually doing better than is reported?

 

[rmac694203]

I do believe the media focuses way too much on the number of deaths every day. After talking to a good buddy in the military who says that they don't tell you about all the schools and useful things that are done all the time are not covered I think that the media does hold some bias.

 

[DLS8K]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, Jan. 5, 2007 11:58 a.m. EST

Poll: Majority Believe Iraq Coverage Biased


Most Americans are convinced that media coverage of the conflict in Iraq is inaccurate and portrays the situation as being worse than it actually is, a new survey shows.

According to the Gallup News Service, a December survey of a representative sample of 569 adult Americans revealed that fully 56 percent believe that major news media coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate while only 4 out of 10 Americans agree that it is accurate.

Moreover, the survey showed that by a 61 percent to 36 percent margin, those who feel that the Iraq coverage is inaccurate say it is because the media make the situation there appear worse than it actually is.

Responses from survey participants showed that two-thirds of Republicans believe that the news media's coverage of Iraq is both inaccurate and makes the situation there appear worse. Only one-quarter say that news media coverage is accurate.


On the other hand, a majority of Democrats (55 percent) say that news media coverage of the situation there is accurate, with most of the rest saying that it is inaccurate and biased toward making the situation there appear better than it really is.

Other survey results:


56 percent believe the news media provide an inaccurate account of the situation in Iraq while 41 percent see it as accurate.

35 percent believe the media makes the situation appear worse than it is, while only 20 percent think it makes the situation better than it is. Three percent had no opinion and 1 percent were unsure.


Broken down by party affiliation, barely 5 percent of Republicans think the media makes the situation appear better, while 25 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats take the position that it does.

Just 25 percent of Republicans think the coverage is accurate, but 42 percent of independents and as many as 55 percent of Democrats think it is accurate.
The survey results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,013 adults, ages 18 and older, conducted Dec. 18-20, 2006. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 569 adults who say the news media have been providing an inaccurate account of the situation in Iraq, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.


**********************************************************

All right, fellas, here's the question or questions being begged by the article:

1. What if it is true that the news is biased?
2. If it's true, isn't the media hiding behind freedom of speech in order to promote propaganda?
3. If they are propagandizing the war negatively, why would they do that? Do they want us to lose the war?
4. If the news of Iraq is biased negatively, doesn't that mean that Iraq is actually doing better than is reported?

Now before I respond to your questions: It should be known that I am an uneducated man because I am not a conservitive or a republican (at least according to you and any other extremist).
1- There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. There has never been unbiased reporting. The reason for this in laments terms is that no matter what you say, there will be a side that agrees with it and a side that disagrees with it. News is nothing more than opinion of an event that has taken place.......there is always two sides to a story..........two ways to spin it.
2- I will admit the news/media is inherently bias (some stations lean to the right and others lean to the left). However, in my opinion, the media is not hiding behind the fundamental right to freedom of speech in order to promote propaganda. The news/media is promoting its interpretation of the events (which does not make it propaganda). But again, there is always two sides to a story....different ways to interpret......and different ways to react.
3- I do not believe they are reporting the war negatively.........rather, they are reporting the war as they interpret it. I do not believe that they want us to lose the war (you could probably find a posting saying the opposite by an extremist group or person from the left). I believe those media outlets who interpret the war differently than you and report it as such wish for us to make changes in our strategy.
4- The question you pose is not logical nor does it have any truth behind the point you were trying to make. President Bush has stated the war is not going as expected and that he is sending more troops over to help. Iraq is not going good no matter which way you interpret the news.

I'm curious to see what your answers to your own questions are. As always, I am sure they are one dimensional.

 

[fossten]

Now before I respond to your questions: It should be known that I am an uneducated man because I am not a conservitive or a republican (at least according to you and any other extremist).
1- There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. There has never been unbiased reporting. The reason for this in laments terms is that no matter what you say, there will be a side that agrees with it and a side that disagrees with it. News is nothing more than opinion of an event that has taken place.......there is always two sides to a story..........two ways to spin it.
2- I will admit the news/media is inherently bias (some stations lean to the right and others lean to the left). However, in my opinion, the media is not hiding behind the fundamental right to freedom of speech in order to promote propaganda. The news/media is promoting its interpretation of the events (which does not make it propaganda). But again, there is always two sides to a story....different ways to interpret......and different ways to react.
3- I do not believe they are reporting the war negatively.........rather, they are reporting the war as they interpret it. I do not believe that they want us to lose the war (you could probably find a posting saying the opposite by an extremist group or person from the left). I believe those media outlets who interpret the war differently than you and report it as such wish for us to make changes in our strategy.
4- The question you pose is not logical nor does it have any truth behind the point you were trying to make. President Bush has stated the war is not going as expected and that he is sending more troops over to help. Iraq is not going good no matter which way you interpret the news.

I'm curious to see what your answers to your own questions are. As always, I am sure they are one dimensional.

You haven't been on this forum long, but I can see that you have mastered NOT the art of debating or discourse, but rather the art of name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Considering that nobody targeted you or even addressed you in this thread, your response is pre-emptive, shallow, laden with invective, and ineffective in getting any sort of point across.

President Bush has admitted that the war is not going as expected, but so what? No war goes as expected, because the enemy gets to take a turn also. (This message brought to you by the scientific magazine DUH!) In WWII we lost 40,000 troops in one month in the Battle of the Bulge. Imagine if today's media had been around then. I bet we would have heard the Democrats clamoring for us to surrender to France, thus ending their legacy of futility.

Your attempt to ignore the importance of media bias is like so much cellophane to me. You cannot separate media bias from public perception. If the media is biased in its reporting, the media is no longer being journalistic and is instead being propagandistic. Biased reporting is simply TWISTING THE TRUTH. Another word for that phrase would be LYING. Why can you people not wrap your heads around that concept? Any slant to the news is opinion, not fact. If opinion is mixed in with reporting, that indicates an agenda.

If the media has an agenda, they should not present themselves as objective observers. That is dishonest. And when they illegally expose national security secrets, they should be accountable for their actions. I think it's time people started exposing these media people and their backgrounds for what they are, so people can understand that the news they get is not the entire truth.

If you can acknowledge that the media is twisting the truth with their bias, how can you trust ANYTHING THEY SAY? Isn't it possible that you've been lied to? I read evidence every day that the media hides or obfuscates the truth. Are you afraid to find out that the things you've been told on CNN or NBC et al might be false?

 

[DLS8K]

You haven't been on this forum long, but I can see that you have mastered NOT the art of debating or discourse, but rather the art of name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Considering that nobody targeted you or even addressed you in this thread, your response is pre-emptive, shallow, laden with invective, and ineffective in getting any sort of point across.

President Bush has admitted that the war is not going as expected, but so what? No war goes as expected, because the enemy gets to take a turn also. (This message brought to you by the scientific magazine DUH!) In WWII we lost 40,000 troops in one month in the Battle of the Bulge. Imagine if today's media had been around then. I bet we would have heard the Democrats clamoring for us to surrender to France, thus ending their legacy of futility.

Your attempt to ignore the importance of media bias is like so much cellophane to me. You cannot separate media bias from public perception. If the media is biased in its reporting, the media is no longer being journalistic and is instead being propagandistic. Biased reporting is simply TWISTING THE TRUTH. Another word for that phrase would be LYING. Why can you people not wrap your heads around that concept? Any slant to the news is opinion, not fact. If opinion is mixed in with reporting, that indicates an agenda.

If the media has an agenda, they should not present themselves as objective observers. That is dishonest. And when they illegally expose national security secrets, they should be accountable for their actions. I think it's time people started exposing these media people and their backgrounds for what they are, so people can understand that the news they get is not the entire truth.

If you can acknowledge that the media is twisting the truth with their bias, how can you trust ANYTHING THEY SAY? Isn't it possible that you've been lied to? I read evidence every day that the media hides or obfuscates the truth. Are you afraid to find out that the things you've been told on CNN or NBC et al might be false?

I never said you could seperate media bias from public perception. Also, I am sure you are aware of the relationship between the media and the government. Since WWII, the government has had a say in what images will get sent back to the American public. There was even an entire panel whose job it was to censor the media. I would suggest reading the book entitle "The Censored War" by George H. Roeder, Jr. Have you ever heard of the Office of War Information (OWI)? If you have any questions regarding this book or the involvement that the government has in the media, I encourage you to ask.

You are blaming the media for bias when in fact BOTH sides are responsible for the misrepresentation and propaganda of war. I hope you understand how ignorant you make yourself sound sometimes when you are uneducated about the role media and government have played in shaping public opinion of war. I hope you can wrap your head around that concept.

In variance of your words.....If you can acknowledge that the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA is twisting the truth with their bias, how can you trust ANYTHING THEY SAY? Isn't it possible that you've been lied to? I read evidence every day that the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA hides or obfuscates the truth. Are you afraid to find out that the things you've been told on the GOVERNMENT, CNN or NBC et al might be false?[/

 

[fossten]

I never said you could seperate media bias from public perception. Also, I am sure you are aware of the relationship between the media and the government. Since WWII, the government has had a say in what images will get sent back to the American public. There was even an entire panel whose job it was to censor the media. I would suggest reading the book entitle "The Censored War" by George H. Roeder, Jr. Have you ever heard of the Office of War Information (OWI)? If you have any questions regarding this book or the involvement that the government has in the media, I encourage you to ask.

Well, that's just an absurd notion easily refuted by facts. We just had the NY Times release classified security information in an article AGAINST the wishes of the Executive Branch, so obviously the government does NOT have a say in what information is released. Furthermore, I vehemently dispute the notion that CNN's releasing of a terrorist propaganda tape showing a terrorist killing an American soldier was approved by the government. That's unthinkable. You can say the phrase "supposed to" till you're blue in the face, but the FACT is that the media is a runaway train pushing its agenda in our faces without any accountability whatsoever. From the Haditha coverage to the lies they told about Katrina to the latest debacle with the AP Israel smoke photoshopping, and finally this false story about 6 Sunnis burned alive in Iraq with a phony source, the media doesn't care about getting it right, they only care about getting their agenda out.

You are blaming the media for bias when in fact BOTH sides are responsible for the misrepresentation and propaganda of war. I hope you understand how ignorant you make yourself sound sometimes when you are uneducated about the role media and government have played in shaping public opinion of war. I hope you can wrap your head around that concept.

BOTH SIDES of what? The war? You mean us and the enemy? Or the government and the media? If you mean the latter, why in the world should we accept the premise that the media should be on the opposite side of the government? Aren't they Americans? Shouldn't they want their country to win the war? And it is definitely wrong for the media to attempt to shape public opinion of a war. They are no longer reporters in that case, but propagandists. You just made my point for me. Sorry, my friend, you just admitted that the media isn't on our side, and they want us to lose. Wrap your head around that concept.

In variance of your words.....If you can acknowledge that the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA is twisting the truth with their bias, how can you trust ANYTHING THEY SAY? Isn't it possible that you've been lied to? I read evidence every day that the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA hides or obfuscates the truth. Are you afraid to find out that the things you've been told on the GOVERNMENT, CNN or NBC et al might be false?

That's just absurd and doesn't make any sense. I already know that most of what the media at CNN and NBC et al says is false. I'm not afraid to find that out. As far as the government keeping secrets, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for our government to keep secrets in order for us to be kept safe. It's called National Security, or hadn't you heard of that? When the media exposes national security secrets or tries to SWAY PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST OUR OWN COUNTRY'S MISSION, that's called propaganda and it's also called treason in my book. You're either with us or against us, and the media is DEFINITELY not with us. You do the math.

 

[decibels5]

Most media is based on the majority, and the majority is based on the media. Plain and simple. Majority=Ratings=Money

 

[Marcus]

Well, that's just an absurd notion easily refuted by facts. We just had the NY Times release classified security information in an article AGAINST the wishes of the Executive Branch, so obviously the government does NOT have a say in what information is released.

The fact that those programs were ILLEGAL might have something to do with them not wanting it released.

Furthermore, I vehemently dispute the notion that CNN's releasing of a terrorist propaganda tape showing a terrorist killing an American soldier was approved by the government.

I seem to recall Sean Hannity, on his radio show, telling listeners that EVERYONE should watch the videos, in order to show what savages they are.

That's unthinkable. You can say the phrase "supposed to" till you're blue in the face, but the FACT is that the media is a runaway train pushing its agenda in our faces without any accountability whatsoever. From the Haditha coverage to the lies they told about Katrina to the latest debacle with the AP Israel smoke photoshopping, and finally this false story about 6 Sunnis burned alive in Iraq with a phony source, the media doesn't care about getting it right, they only care about getting their agenda out.

What is it about the Haditha coverage do you find objectionable? The mere fact that it was reported at all?

As for the story about the Iraqis burned alive, AP has been vindicated on that one, but your right-wing bloggers, for the most part, refuse to admit it.

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

"Faces arrest for speaking to the media"? Say it ain't so! Or is this the kind of thing you'd like to see in this country? It sure sounds that way.

Khalaf told the AP that an arrest warrant had been issued for the captain for having contacts with the media in violation of the ministry's regulations.

Hussein told the AP on Wednesday that he learned the arrest warrant would be issued when he returned to work on Thursday after the Eid al-Adha holiday. His phone was turned off Thursday and he could not be reached for further comment.

Hussein appears to have fallen afoul of a new Iraqi push, encouraged by some U.S. advisers, to more closely monitor the flow of information about the country's violence, and strictly enforce regulations that bar all but authorized spokesmen from talking to media.

Yet when presented with these facts, right-wing bloggers like hate-filled harpy Michelle Malkin still refuse to apologize or admit they were wrong.

So you've named what you consider to be media propaganda. How about the government propaganda? There has been enough to fill up this forum.

To just name a couple off the top of my head, how about the lies that were told about how Pat Tillman died or the debacle over what actually happened to Jessica Lynch?

How about the $100 million contract that the Lincoln Group was awarded for planting "favorable" stories in the Iraqi media?

And back home, how about Armstrong Williams being paid by the Dept of Education for extolling the virtues of No Child Left Behind, or Maggie Gallagher and columnist Michael McManus being paid by the Dept of HHS for promoting Bush's marriage amendment? And those are just the ones we know about.

Or how about the so-called video news releases (VNRs) that have been created by government agencies and broadcast by local news stations as legitimate stories, all the while never revealing the source of the video?

I was going to continue with the rest of your post, but I'm outta time. I'll be back later.

 

[DLS8K]

Well, that's just an absurd notion easily refuted by facts. We just had the NY Times release classified security information in an article AGAINST the wishes of the Executive Branch, so obviously the government does NOT have a say in what information is released. Furthermore, I vehemently dispute the notion that CNN's releasing of a terrorist propaganda tape showing a terrorist killing an American soldier was approved by the government. That's unthinkable. You can say the phrase "supposed to" till you're blue in the face, but the FACT is that the media is a runaway train pushing its agenda in our faces without any accountability whatsoever. From the Haditha coverage to the lies they told about Katrina to the latest debacle with the AP Israel smoke photoshopping, and finally this false story about 6 Sunnis burned alive in Iraq with a phony source, the media doesn't care about getting it right, they only care about getting their agenda out.


BOTH SIDES of what? The war? You mean us and the enemy? Or the government and the media? If you mean the latter, why in the world should we accept the premise that the media should be on the opposite side of the government? Aren't they Americans? Shouldn't they want their country to win the war? And it is definitely wrong for the media to attempt to shape public opinion of a war. They are no longer reporters in that case, but propagandists. You just made my point for me. Sorry, my friend, you just admitted that the media isn't on our side, and they want us to lose. Wrap your head around that concept.



That's just absurd and doesn't make any sense. I already know that most of what the media at CNN and NBC et al says is false. I'm not afraid to find that out. As far as the government keeping secrets, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for our government to keep secrets in order for us to be kept safe. It's called National Security, or hadn't you heard of that? When the media exposes national security secrets or tries to SWAY PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST OUR OWN COUNTRY'S MISSION, that's called propaganda and it's also called treason in my book. You're either with us or against us, and the media is DEFINITELY not with us. You do the math.

So you have no questions on the OWI? Why am I not surprised. Keep living in denial..........never holding the government responsible. You are such a sheep.

And the media isn't on YOUR side because of your extremist conservitive standings. It's like you think everyone is out to get you and your fellow chronies. The government uses propaganda........the media uses propaganda. So what? Who cares? If we can't question the government, than we are all sheep like you.

 

[fossten]

The fact that those programs were ILLEGAL might have something to do with them not wanting it released.

You would be INCORRECT. That is not a FACT. Exactly ZERO of those programs were illegal. In fact, where they have been challenged in court, they have been found to be legal. Nice try, but show me proof before you make wild, unfounded assertions. It is clear, however, that those programs are much less effective thanks to the traitorous media's interference.

I seem to recall Sean Hannity, on his radio show, telling listeners that EVERYONE should watch the videos, in order to show what savages they are.

So what.

What is it about the Haditha coverage do you find objectionable? The mere fact that it was reported at all?

The fact that the media tried and convicted the soldiers, including public statements from Jack Murtha calling them murderers BEFORE they were even given a fair trial.

As for the story about the Iraqis burned alive, AP has been vindicated on that one, but your right-wing bloggers, for the most part, refuse to admit it.

Show me the evidence where they refuse to admit it.

"Faces arrest for speaking to the media"? Say it ain't so!

Sounds like he broke the rules of his department based on the article. I guess you'd rather call him a whistleblower, right? Sort of like how Gary Aldrich and Lynda Tripp were vilified by the media as well, eh? Or Scooter Libby? It's all well and good as long as the leaker reveals information detrimental to the United States Government or a Republican. But if the information helps the country or hurts a Democrat, why, that means they are a leaker. Pure hypocrisy.

Or is this the kind of thing you'd like to see in this country? It sure sounds that way.

Nice job of putting words in my mouth. Let me try: You want us to lose the war, you hate America, you love the terrorists, you hate freedom, you want socialism in this country. Gee, it's really easy to do. You set a good example, Tommy.

Yet when presented with these facts, right-wing bloggers like hate-filled harpy Michelle Malkin still refuse to apologize or admit they were wrong.

Look at you with your nasty name-calling. What's the matter, can't debate without ad hominem attacks? I'll bet you've never even read Michelle's blog.

So you've named what you consider to be media propaganda. How about the government propaganda? There has been enough to fill up this forum.

Propaganda indicates an agenda. Of course the government has an agenda. Maybe you've heard of it? It's "Winning the war and protecting the people." What's the media's agenda? Hmm? Undermining the war and electing Democrats to public office? So much for fair and balanced reporting, eh?

To just name a couple off the top of my head, how about the lies that were told about how Pat Tillman died or the debacle over what actually happened to Jessica Lynch?

What about them? I don't remember that there were lies, only incomplete information that was corrected once it came to light. Unlike the falsehoods projected by the media, which are NEVER corrected. Example: Do you remember how many people died in New Orleans b/c of Katrina? Do you remember how many the media claimed were dead? (Cue Jeopardy music)

How about the $100 million contract that the Lincoln Group was awarded for planting "favorable" stories in the Iraqi media?

Those stories were true, so what's your point? Ever heard of fair and balanced?

And back home, how about Armstrong Williams being paid by the Dept of Education for extolling the virtues of No Child Left Behind, or Maggie Gallagher and columnist Michael McManus being paid by the Dept of HHS for promoting Bush's marriage amendment? And those are just the ones we know about.

Again, if the information is accurate, what is your problem? Angry that the truth is coming out despite the MSM's best attempts?

Or how about the so-called video news releases (VNRs) that have been created by government agencies and broadcast by local news stations as legitimate stories, all the while never revealing the source of the video?

Show me ONE EXAMPLE to discuss.

 

[fossten]

So you have no questions on the OWI? Why am I not surprised. Keep living in denial..........never holding the government responsible. You are such a sheep.

And the media isn't on YOUR side because of your extremist conservitive standings. It's like you think everyone is out to get you and your fellow chronies. The government uses propaganda........the media uses propaganda. So what? Who cares? If we can't question the government, than we are all sheep like you.

Your name-calling, despite your misguided thinking, doesn't lend you any credibility. I'll check into the OWI when I have time. But if you really want somebody to listen to you, calling names and hurling insults isn't the way to do it.

By the way, have you EVER HELD THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION responsible for ANYTHING THEY DID, Mr. Hold-the-government-responsible? Not a chance. And it would be SO EASY to give you a list of his/their transgressions, starting with Paula Jones and ending with 9/11, but you are SUCH A SHEEP that you wouldn't even bother to read it.

 

[DLS8K]

Your name-calling, despite your misguided thinking, doesn't lend you any credibility. I'll check into the OWI when I have time. But if you really want somebody to listen to you, calling names and hurling insults isn't the way to do it.

By the way, have you EVER HELD THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION responsible for ANYTHING THEY DID, Mr. Hold-the-government-responsible? Not a chance. And it would be SO EASY to give you a list of his/their transgressions, starting with Paula Jones and ending with 9/11, but you are SUCH A SHEEP that you wouldn't even bother to read it.

I actually do hold the Clinton administration partly responsible for the September 11 attacks. And I'm placing equal blame on the government and the media for the misrepresentation of the truth (that goes for anything and everything that goes on in this world).
My misguided thinking as it may appear to you takes into consideration more than just one side of the story. Also, I am using the same candor you have extended me.