Fox News Bans Democratic Response to Bush's Speech
Muad'Dib
Fair and BALANCED, eh?
see http://mediamatters.org/items/200405250002
Dems invisible in FOX News Channel Bush speech coverage
Following live coverage of President George W. Bush's 31-minute May 24
speech on U.S. policy in Iraq, during primetime, at 8 p.m. (ET), MSNBC,
CNN, and FOX News Channel devoted the remainder of the hour to analysis
and commentary.
On MSNBC, host Chris Matthews anchored a special edition of Hardball,
which began an hour before Bush's speech and continued afterward.
Following Bush's speech, Matthews switched to a lengthy interview with
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, offering a Democratic view. Biden was followed by
Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), giving a view from congressional
Republicans.
On CNN, host Paula Zahn anchored an abbreviated form of her show Paula
Zahn Now, headlined "Special Edition: Countdown to Handover." After
canvassing CNN White House and Pentagon correspondents, Zahn featured
an interview with former President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, who offered a Democratic view. Albright was
followed by Joe Klein, a regular contributor to Zahn's show and a Time
magazine senior writer, and then by an exchange between Senate Majority
Whip Mitch McConnell and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), the former vice
presidential candidate.
The lineup on FOX News Channel was strikingly different; no Democrats
were heard from.
FOX News Channel's coverage was anchored by FOX News managing editor
and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume, who moved from Bush to a
panel of pundits that included pro-Bush, pro-war conservative
syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer; pro-Bush, pro-war
conservative Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes; and
Washington Post staff writer Ceci Connolly -- FOX News contributors
all. National Public Radio senior correspondent and FOX News Channel
political contributor Juan Williams, who often appears on Hume's daily
6 p.m. newscast and has been critical of Bush's polices in Iraq, did
not appear on the primetime panel.
Following the panel of two conservative pundits and one news reporter,
Hume introduced Representative Peter King (R-NY) as "one who supports
the President on this issue." King described the Bush address as
"uplifting," "poetry," and said Bush spoke "almost lyrically."
After a brief exchange with FOX senior White House correspondent Jim
Angle, Hume returned to his stacked panel for closing remarks.
Krauthammer was given the last word: "He had to answer a question,
'does he have a plan?' The answer is yes, he has a plan, with details
and dates. He succeeded."
--
"Every civilization must contend with an unconscious force which can block,
betray or countermand almost any conscious intention of the collectivity."
Muad'Dib
Captain Compassion
What makes you think that Ceci Connolly is not a Democrat? After all
she is a reporter for the Washington post.
>Following the panel of two conservative pundits and one news reporter,
>Hume introduced Representative Peter King (R-NY) as "one who supports
>the President on this issue." King described the Bush address as
>"uplifting," "poetry," and said Bush spoke "almost lyrically."
>
>After a brief exchange with FOX senior White House correspondent Jim
>Angle, Hume returned to his stacked panel for closing remarks.
>Krauthammer was given the last word: "He had to answer a question,
>'does he have a plan?' The answer is yes, he has a plan, with details
>and dates. He succeeded."
>
>--
>"Every civilization must contend with an unconscious force which can block,
>betray or countermand almost any conscious intention of the collectivity."
>Muad'Dib
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one ambition is worthy of Islam, to save the world from the
curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves
on the basis of man-made laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of
God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation."
-- Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Helena
I watched FNC's coverage of the speech, and I thought they did a fine
job of representing both sides of the spectrum. FNC always offers a
fair and balanced look at any issue that is at hand, and I think they
continued down that path on Monday night.
David Galehouse
"Helena" <helena...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2bbebb7.04052...@posting.google.com...
...and then, the acid wore off.
Dave Simpson
> Fair and BALANCED, eh?
More than the rest of the liberal "mainstream" media, certainly.
The liberals in the media, in fact, along with conservatives have
zeroed in on this relative position of Fox. See the Pew poll.
("Press going too easy on Bush" -- what a liberal delusion.)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214
> see http://mediamatters.org/items/200405250002
Or FAIR, whose name is a lie? (* snicker *)
Along with objecting to the left-wing garbage that appeals to the
emotion of the retardate Dim Party faithful, I also simply don't have
a problem with the "opposition" "response" nonsense after the
President gives a speech that is broadcast publicly (which Bush's
wasn't on most liberal media networks, by the way -- a fact you
probably wish to ignore and hope it goes away).
Aside from the meaningless mud-slinging of these "opposition"
statements, there's a more fundamental reason behind my objection: it
amounts to an enshrining of something that is not official, no matter
how extensive and thorough -- the system we have of two major
political parties, the duopoly.
Dave Simpson
ThomJeff
>
> I watched FNC's coverage of the speech, and I thought they did a fine
> job of representing both sides of the spectrum. FNC always offers a
> fair and balanced look at any issue that is at hand, and I think they
> continued down that path on Monday night.
You sound as if you have the political acumen of
Britney Spears. To you, apparently, "fair and
balanced" means 3 pro-Bush commentators and a
neutral reporter.
The sad part for America is: you're not alone in
that belief.
Thom
Dave Simpson
media avoided broadcasting the President's speech.
Not only that, but the Opposing Response speeches are simple attacks
that with Republican presidents only appeal to the Dim Party
faithful's emotions, and more importantly, they make more formal and
official the two-major-party Duopoly, which is a bad thing.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
...
Networks pull plug on Bush speech
Broadcast networks decide not to cover Bush speech on Iraq
TV Networks Won't Cover Bush's Speeches
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- ABC, CBS and NBC decided not to offer live coverage of
President Bush's speech about Iraq Monday, although the cable news
networks planned to pre-empt their regular programming for the
address. ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/speech.tv.ap/
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Entertainment/Television/03SceneTV03052504.htm
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-05242004-305605.html
Etc.
Media owe public full news coverage
President George W. Bush gave a speech Monday night outlining five
broad points that detail the preparation for the hand-over of
sovereignty in Iraq. The speech is the first of six leading to the
June 30 transfer of power.
But if you were watching network TV Monday night, you might have never
known it even happened. ...
Dave Simpson
Suzuki
At least Babs will eat well today. She talks so much shit,
it is probably her favorite entree.
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.04052...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
Muad'Dib
Simpson <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Liberal Media Three Blind Mice
<<snip>>
> Media owe public full news coverage
<<snip>>
see
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2004/0513usg
rip.htm
US Tightens Grip on Iraq's Future
By Yochi J. Dreazen and Christopher Cooper
Wall Street Journal
May 13, 2004
Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq's Ministry of Communications, but he no
longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq's
television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone
companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were
selected by Washington. The commissioners' five-year terms stretch far
beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government that
will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who spent
nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year. He
found out the commission had been formally signed into law only when a
reporter asked him for comment about it. "No one from the U.S. even
found time to call and tell me themselves," he says.
As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul
Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will
give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important
decision the interim government will make.
In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's
Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that
effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several
ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser
position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq's new
army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog
institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and
allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that
coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries
after the handover.
In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms
and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award
contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi
government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the
ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions
within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S.
officials and others familiar with the plan.
The moves risk exacerbating the two biggest problems bedeviling the
U.S. occupation: the reluctance of Iraqis to take responsibility for
their own country and the tendency of many Iraqis to blame the
country's woes on the U.S.
Nechirvan Barzani, who controls the western half of the Kurdish
autonomous region in northern Iraq, warns that the U.S. presence in the
country will continue to spark criticism and violence until Iraqis
really believe they run their own country. For his part, Mr. Abadi, the
communications minister, says that installing a government that can't
make important decisions essentially "freezes the country in place." He
adds, "If it's a sovereign Iraqi government that can't change laws or
make decisions, we haven't gained anything."
U.S. officials say their moves are necessary to prevent an unelected
interim government from making long-term decisions that the later,
elected government would find difficult to undo when it takes office
next year. U.S. officials say they are also concerned that the interim
government might complicate the transition process by maneuvering to
remain in power even after its term comes to an end.
The fear is not a hypothetical one: The U.S.-appointed Governing
Council embarrassed and angered the U.S. by publicly lobbying to assume
sovereignty this summer as Iraq's next rulers. Those concerns are
shared by the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
With Shiites making up nearly 60% of Iraq, Mr. Sistani and his
followers don't want important decisions made until an elected
government -- which he expects Shiites to dominate -- takes power.
U.S. officials say many Iraqi political leaders also tacitly approve
severely restricting the powers of the new government, even if they
don't say so publicly. "The Iraqis know we don't want to be here, and
they know they're not ready to take over," says a State Department
official with intimate knowledge of the Bush administration's plans for
Iraq. "We'd love a welcoming sentiment from the Iraqis, but we'll
accept grim resignation."
Currently, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which answers to the
Pentagon, has total control of the governance of Iraq. It can issue
decrees on virtually any topic, which then immediately become law. It
will formally cease to exist on June 30. The Governing Council exists
largely as an advisory body. Its members can pass laws, but the
legislation must be approved by Mr. Bremer. The council has no control
over the U.S. military, and in practice has little influence on civil
matters.
It's unclear what powers the interim government, which will be set up
by United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, will have. It will not control
Iraq's security forces or military. In theory, it will have the ability
to enforce and interpret laws on its own, though it will as of now lack
the ability to write new ones or make large changes to them.
One thing is clear: The government's actions are likely to be heavily
influenced by dozens of U.S. and Iraqi appointees at virtually all
levels.
In March, for instance, Mr. Bremer issued a lengthy edict
consolidating control of all Iraqi troops and security forces under the
Ministry of Defense and its head, Ali Allawi. But buried in the
document is a one-paragraph "emergency" decree ceding "operational
control" of all Iraqi forces to senior U.S. military commanders in
Iraq. Iraqis will be able to organize the army, make officer
appointments, set up new-officer and special-forces courses, and try to
develop doctrines and policies to govern the forces. But they can't
actually order their forces into, or out of, combat -- that power will
rest solely with U.S. commanders.
U.S. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, who participated in the original Iraq
invasion, will soon assume responsibility for training the new forces.
With American commanders retaining the power to order the forces into
combat, Mr. Allawi or his successor will be left with only
"administrative control" of the forces.
Meanwhile, the media and telecom commission Mr. Bremer created will be
able to collect media licensing fees, regulate television and telephone
companies, shut down news agencies, extract written apologies from
newspapers and seize publishing and broadcast equipment.
One of the new watchdog agencies, the Office of the Inspector General,
will have appointees inside every Iraqi ministry charged with combating
malfeasance and fraud. Appointed to five-year terms, the inspectors
will be allowed to subpoena witnesses and documents, perform forensic
audits and issue annual reports.
The other watchdog, the Board of Supreme Audit, will oversee a battery
of other inspectors with wide-ranging authority to review government
contracts and investigate any agency that uses public money. Mr. Bremer
will appoint the board president and his two deputies. They can't be
removed without a two-thirds vote of Iraq's parliament, which isn't
slated to come into existence until sometime next year.
Few of the positions have been filled so far, but officials at the CPA
and the Governing Council say they expect to name the new officials
within weeks. The advisers inside the ministries are likely to be
almost exclusively American, while the inspectors and members of the
various new commissions will all be Iraqi. Individual ministers can
dismiss their advisers, but many U.S. officials assume they'll be
reluctant to do so for fear of antagonizing the U.S.
The nerve center of the U.S. presence in Iraq will be a massive new
embassy. CPA officials recently decided that most employees of the new
embassy will remain in a former palace used by Saddam Hussein even
though the building is seen by many Iraqis as a symbol of Iraqi
sovereignty. The embassy needs the space: It will ultimately employ
approximately 1,300 Americans, as well as 2,000 or more Iraqis. The
current occupation authority employs 1,500 people.
The U.S. plans to convert a nearby building into the formal embassy
that incoming U.S. ambassador John Negroponte can use for ceremonial
functions. In an unusual move, two of Mr. Negroponte's top deputies
will also have ambassadorial rank. James Jeffrey will become the deputy
chief of mission at the embassy. Blunt and often profane, Mr. Jeffrey,
a former Army special forces officer, is currently the ambassador to
Albania and has held senior posts in Turkey and Kuwait. Ron Newman,
currently the ambassador to Bahrain, also has a military background and
is likely to join the embassy in Iraq in a senior position such as
defense attaché.
The U.S. push to continue guiding events in Iraq has been led by the
State Department, where officials have grown convinced that placing the
country under full Iraqi control now would plunge it deeper into
violence and political turmoil, according to people familiar with the
matter. U.S. officials had once talked of occupying Iraq for several
years, a period more in keeping with the precedent set by the
seven-year occupation of Japan after World War II. Last November,
however, the White House accelerated the timetable. Despite a wave of
bombings the previous month, the administration believed the insurgency
was limited to a small number of what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
called "dead-enders."
The Bush administration also felt Iraq's Sunni minority, which had
controlled Iraq under Mr. Hussein, had been neutralized by the
disbanding of the army and the firing of tens of thousands of
government officials. Iraq's Shiite majority was seemingly unified
behind Mr. Sistani, who counseled his followers to cooperate with the
coalition. And Iraq's ethnic Kurds, who controlled the country's north,
had moderated their long-held demands for full independence.
Many of those assumptions haven't yet panned out. Sunnis angry over
their forced disenfranchisement have put up a stiff resistance to the
U.S. occupation in cities like Fallujah, and Iraq's fledgling security
forces have been unable or unwilling to help fight them. Thousands of
Shiites have taken up arms against the U.S. under the flag of Muqtada
al Sadr, an anti-American cleric once dismissed by Washington as a bit
player in Iraq.
The Kurds, meanwhile, remain deeply wary of joining up with the rest
of the country. With the violence surging in recent weeks, the State
Department official with knowledge of the administration's plans says
the U.S. "realized that what we put on the table in November wasn't
flying."
U.S. officials settled on making an array of appointments intended to
allow them to influence the interim government. The CPA official
charged with setting up the new embassy, John C. Holzman, downplays the
possibility of disputes, and says the role of the advisers will change
after June 30 because they will no longer be answering to an occupation
authority with full authority over Iraq.
"There will be a huge difference because we're not going to be issuing
orders anymore," he says. "We won't be the sovereign here anymore."
But many Iraqis and Americans concede that friction is all but
inevitable. If recent events are any indication, the most serious
disagreements between the U.S. and the new government could arise over
the best strategy for fighting the ongoing insurgency. When fighting
flared in Fallujah and Najaf, U.S. commanders ordered newly trained
Iraqi units into combat alongside American forces, but the Iraqis
proved largely ineffective. Many units deserted entirely, while others
joined the insurgents.
It's also unclear if Iraqi political leaders will want local units to
fight -- especially if the enemy is other Iraqis. The U.S. decision to
use heavy weaponry like helicopter gunships against targets in Fallujah
caused the resignations of two Iraqi political leaders who had been
appointed by the U.S. almost a year earlier, and sparked searing
denunciations of the coalition by numerous other Iraqi officials. The
Iraqis insisted on a nonviolent solution to the dispute and accused the
U.S. of acting with a heavy hand and causing needless civilian
casualties.
If the U.S. pressed ahead with the offensive anyway, it would risk
embarrassing the new government and persuading ordinary Iraqis that the
body is powerless. But if it gave in, American commanders could find
themselves hamstrung in the fight against insurgents.
Bill Spindle contributed to this article
Muad'Dib
<res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
<<snip>>
Check this blog article out from a guy who' decided to "adopt" Ceci
Connolly and track her distortions in the Washingtom Post:
see
http://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_dimmykarras_archive.html#1073
07701179734763
and the tracking entries at:
http://dimmykarras.envy.nu/Connolly/
My Encounter with Ceci Connolly
Atrios has suggested that we all "adopt a journalist" and keep track of
any distortions in reporting about the campaign, given what happened in
2000. The top two writers Atrios suggests we focus on are Kit Seelye
and Ceci Connolly, which reminds me of the time I met Connolly. Here's
the story...
I was a college sophomore in spring 2001 and I went to hear Connolly
address a group of students about covering the 2000 Gore campaign. I
remember being bothered by a few things she had to say. First, she
claimed that a lot of journalists work hard to retain their
objectivity, and that some don't even vote at all because they don't
want to feel compromised. She was bragging about this almost, as if not
voting clears a reporter of ever being biased toward a candidate. She
seemed unaware of the fact that generally in speeches to college
students, adults try to encourage the younger folks to go out and vote
(George W. Bush, to his credit, told me to vote the one time I met him
in New Hampshire in early 2000).
Soon after that revelation, though, Connolly seemed pretty damn biased
when she expressed her outrage that Al Gore was then giving some
lectures at Columbia's journalism school. A paraphrase: "Here was a
candidate whose campaign had no clue how to handle the press. As a
reporter, I am outraged that he is now giving lectures, telling people
how to work with the media. It's a disgrace." Maybe the seats weren't
comfortable enough on the plane or the staffers didn't give her good
scoops, I don't know. She wasn't so exercised about anything else the
whole 90 minutes or so I was there. Connolly also apparently is chummy
with Seelye, I should note.
During the Q and A session, I confronted her a bit with a question on
the horse-race focused media coverage in 2000, which she responded to
with total denial, claiming the Post had plenty of substance. I wasn't
yet a blogger so I wasn't as abundantly informed about Connolly's work
then as I am now. In the time since that meeting, I've noticed that
Connolly has gone on to become a "fair and balanced" panelist on Fox
News Sunday.
Now she's starting to write on Howard Dean, and I am pledging today to
read everything under Ms. Connolly's byline and discuss it in this
space. Let's begin.
"Dean Focuses on Jobs, Health Care in S.C." was Wednesday's article,
and it seems pretty much tailored to the "Dean is a northeastern
liberal who can't win in the South" narrative:
Howard Dean took a detour Tuesday from the cold winds of Iowa and New
Hampshire, where he is leading in most polls, to this balmy state that
barely knows him but will have a major influence on his presidential
prospects...
Dean sketched out his case for how a northeastern liberal can win in
the more conservative, heavily black South...
The crowds were a bit smaller than up north...
Dean boasts that he does not tailor his remarks to the audience, though
there were a few notable exceptions...
Fewer than a dozen of the 125 Democratic activists gathered for a
breakfast at Horne's Country Buffet in Florence were black, and the
crowd here in Georgetown, set on the banks of the Sampit River, was
predominantly white...
And as Dean shook hands afterward, supporters handed checks to his aide
Kate O'Connor.
The first sentence, on Dean leading polls in New Hampshire and Iowa,
implies by contrast that he isn't leading in South Carolina. Of course,
Kos has reported that the latest American Research Group poll gives
Dean 16 percent, with Wesley Clark next at 12 percent.
Then there's the statement that he's a northeastern liberal, which, for
the thousandth time, isn't supported by the moderate record of Dean as
Vermont's governor over a decade. Connolly makes sure we are told that
he draws smaller crowds in the South, supposedly a sign that his
"liberal" candidacy is less popular, when in fact the primary is
farther in the future and people aren't really paying attention yet to
the extent of Iowa or NH. She also wants us to know that Dean is
tailoring his remarks by region, implying he's trying to hide his true
liberal credentials, when really he may just be emphasizing some
different points due to the unique concerns of South Carolinians, which
of course don't precisely mirror those of other states. Completely
changing a position would be one thing, but changing points of emphasis
based on the audience is nothing out of the ordinary.
Then there's the stuff about how his supporters are mostly white and
the unflattering image of checks being handed to Dean's aide.
As you can see, Connolly isn't disappointing me thus far. She's a
master of slanting news coverage to protray a candidate in a negative
light, and I look forward to seeing what else she comes up with in the
weeks and months ahead.
My2Cents
> see http://mediamatters.org/items/200405250002
> Dems invisible in FOX News Channel Bush speech coverage
This is a perfect example of Fox News' all encompassing Pro-Republican
bias. The fact that they still try to market themselves as 'fair &
balanced' insults our intelligence.
Helena
How can you even say that? The numbers from Monday night's speech show
who provided the best coverage of the evening's top news. FNC has
consistently provided superior journalism to that of CNN and MSNBC,
and Americans are taking notice of that fact.
Muad'Dib
<helena...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Superior journalism?
How come Fox News Viewers are the least well informed listeners on
current events according to recent polls?
Every other news program polled higher than Fox News.
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous
differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most
misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent
of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared
to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in
between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC
tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55
percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one
misperception.
As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far
outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers
believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks
scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers
believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience
did.
PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound
one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News
said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link
to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS
thought so.
Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a
Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the
Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it. The study also
debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of
exposure to news.
see http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892
The Hazards of Watching Fox News
By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service
October 3, 2003
The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are
likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath,
according to a major new study released in Washington this week.
And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in
particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war
are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on
International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based
Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls,
PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found
evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist
group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion
favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are
misperceptions.
The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found
that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it
was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial
television for news about it.
The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate
over why mainstream news media especially the broadcast media were
not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims,
particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with
al-Qaeda.
"This is a dangerously revealing study," said Marvin Kalb, a former
television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Center
on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University.
While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the
questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, "People who have
had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics
and the press now have more evidence." Fox, in particular, has been
accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite
its motto, "We report, you decide."
Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at
least one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent
of respondents had none of those misperceptions.
Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose
slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found
that 45 percent of the public believed U.S. forces had found "clear
evidence in Iraq that Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda." In
September, 49 percent believed that.
Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from
21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents
said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological
weapons during the war.
In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA
considered a number of variables in the data.
It found a high correlation between respondents with the most
misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23
percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported
the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those
who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been
found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a
whopping 86 percent said they supported war.
More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found
clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds
held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29
percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such
evidence had been found.
Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the
war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely"
to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as
expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote
for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.
The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned
to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for
a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17
percent. Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was
working closely with al Qaeda?" 68 percent of Bush supporters replied
affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said
no.
But news sources also accounted for major differences in
misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300
respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news.''
Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print
media.
Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more
networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three
big networks NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and
three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous
differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most
misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent
of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared
to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in
between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC
tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55
percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one
misperception.
As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far
outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers
believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks
scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers
believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience
did.
PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound
one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News
said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link
to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS
thought so.
Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a
Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the
Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it. The study also
debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of
exposure to news.
Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very
closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush
supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat
closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions. Conversely,
those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very
closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as
those who said they did, according to PIPA.
Jim Lobe writes for the Inter Press Service, AlterNet.org,
TomPaine.com, and Foreign Policy in Focus.
cLIeNUX user
Fox News's decicion to no longer even mildly support the ruse that they
are fair and balanced is a form of cutting and running. There's a lot of
that going on.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
My2Cents
> ...FNC has consistently provided superior journalism to that of CNN and MSNBC,
> and Americans are taking notice of that fact.
ROFL ...Whoa...God, that was a good laugh! Thanks...I needed that!
(P.S.: Apparently you aren't familiar with 'propaganda', read this:
The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts
Democracy by David Brock)
harpoo
network that has representatives of both Dem and COns sides debating
ON_AIR allowing the audience to decide... The poll you reference was
such blatant propaganda, it is crazy.. CNN is known to pick and
choose stories based on what appeals to their agenda, so keep watching
them and be fed the communism. Me, I choose my own opinions, and on
FNC, I will be able to see all of the stories, whether they turn out
to be a major issue or not.
Muad'Dib
<harp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calling FNC biased is a true cop-out.
No, it's called telling the truth, something Fox News seldom does.
> They are clearly the only
> network that has representatives of both Dem and COns sides debating
> ON_AIR allowing the audience to decide...
Really? Then why did every other cable news network invite a
representative from the Democratic side to air a response to Bush's
speech at the Army War College?
Fox invited no Democratic representative to provide BALANCED coverage
of the President's address through a Democratic rebuttal.
> The poll you reference was
> such blatant propaganda, it is crazy..
To most people who believe Fox News, the truth seems crazy.
> CNN is known to pick and
> choose stories based on what appeals to their agenda, so keep watching
> them and be fed the communism.
You're describing Fox News to a tee.
> Me, I choose my own opinions, and on
> FNC, I will be able to see all of the stories, whether they turn out
> to be a major issue or not.
Dream on.
Ihatekerie Sosumi
"Muad'Dib" <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message
news:280520041329246330%Muad'D...@dia.gov...
> In article <a5d48e7c.04052...@posting.google.com>, harpoo
> <harp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Calling FNC biased is a true cop-out.
>
> No, it's called telling the truth, something Fox News seldom does.
On the contrary, FOX is about the only network that DOES tell the truth!
David Galehouse
"Ihatekerie Sosumi" <DemScum#1...@DMC.net> wrote in message
news:mMKtc.14684$be.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yeah, and the WWE is real too, huh, Imanasshole Sosumi? You reveal your
idiocy with statements like this.
Muad'Dib
Ihatekerie Sosumi <DemScum#1...@DMC.net> wrote:
How would you know when they report only one side of the argument?
Dems invisible in FOX News Channel Bush speech coverage
see http://mediamatters.org/items/200405250002
‹ D.B.
Posted to the web on Tuesday May 25, 2004 at 11:18 AM EST
Copyright © 2004 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
GoreRantsForKerry
> In article <mMKtc.14684$be.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Ihatekerie Sosumi <DemScum#1...@DMC.net> wrote:
>
> > "Muad'Dib" <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message
> > news:280520041329246330%Muad'D...@dia.gov...
> > > In article <a5d48e7c.04052...@posting.google.com>, harpoo
> > > <harp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Calling FNC biased is a true cop-out.
> > >
> > > No, it's called telling the truth, something Fox News seldom does.
> >
> > On the contrary, FOX is about the only network that DOES tell the truth!
>
> How would you know when they report only one side of the argument?
When will CBS, NBC, and ABC be broadcasting President Bush's address to the
nation on last Monday?
Muad'Dib
GoreRantsForKerry <GoreLiesW...@dnc.net> wrote:
> "Muad'Dib" <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message
> news:280520041407091899%Muad'D...@dia.gov...
> > In article <mMKtc.14684$be.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Ihatekerie Sosumi <DemScum#1...@DMC.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Muad'Dib" <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:280520041329246330%Muad'D...@dia.gov...
> > > > In article <a5d48e7c.04052...@posting.google.com>, harpoo
> > > > <harp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Calling FNC biased is a true cop-out.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's called telling the truth, something Fox News seldom does.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, FOX is about the only network that DOES tell the truth!
> >
> > How would you know when they report only one side of the argument?
>
>
> When will CBS, NBC, and ABC be broadcasting President Bush's address to the
> nation on last Monday?
You'll have to ask the network executives why they decided that what GW
had to say really wasn't that important...and they proved to be right
in not broadcasting his lackluster speech full of rehashed rhetoric.
MontanaSkies
> FNC has consistently provided superior journalism...
Today was a good example of that 'superior' journalism. On 'The Big
Story' they reported (and not the only show that has spread this lie)
that John Kerry's position on the Iraq war was to 'cut and run'. Kerry
has said in speeches and on his campaign website that we CAN NOT 'cut
and run'. It would be irresponsible to leave Iraq before it is secure.
Yet Fox News, on a daily basis, engages in the spread of their
disinformation to the American public.
schumy
will all make sense.
Muad'Dib <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message news:<260520041318406203%Muad'D...@dia.gov>...
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Fair and BALANCED, eh?
Like ABC, NBC and CBS which didn't carry the Democrat's response either?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Muad'Dib
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
> In news:260520041318406203%Muad'D...@dia.gov Muad'Dib <Muad'D...@dia.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > Fair and BALANCED, eh?
>
> Like ABC, NBC and CBS which didn't carry the Democrat's response either?
ALL of the other news outlets that carried the President's address
offered a Democratic representative response. All except Fox.
ABC, CBS and NBC didn't carry a response because they didn't carry the
bumbling idiots speech.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> ABC, CBS and NBC didn't carry a response because they didn't carry the
> bumbling idiots speech.
You certainly don't sound very "fair and balanced", now, do you?
Muad'Dib
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
> In news:280520042018559183%Muad'D...@dia.gov Muad'Dib <Muad'D...@dia.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > ABC, CBS and NBC didn't carry a response because they didn't carry the
> > bumbling idiots speech.
>
> You certainly don't sound very "fair and balanced", now, do you?
I never said I was.
I don't advertise that my slogan is Fair and Balanced.
I don't pretend to be a news channel.
AND I don't accept paid commercials.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> I don't pretend to be a news channel.
And, even though the Fox "News" channel puts the word "News" in its name,
it doesn't do much real "news", does it?
The bulk of its programming, at least what little of it I've seen,
consists of talk shows.
Why are you folks so fixated on Fox? Can't you tolerate one single TV
outlet which doesn't follow your line?
Muad'Dib
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
What line would that be?
What most people would like to hear from a "news" outlet is an unbiased
reporting of the facts from both sides, allowing the reader or listener
to draw his own conclusions.
Fox News and most large TV media decides for the listener and then
reports their decision as to what the facts are.
That's not news and it's a poor excuse for entertainment.
Hanging Chad
> In article <Xns94F8616CE9F...@209.98.13.60>, Bert Hyman
> <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:290520040007401439%Muad'D...@dia.gov Muad'Dib <Muad'D...@dia.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't pretend to be a news channel.
>>
>> And, even though the Fox "News" channel puts the word "News" in its name,
>> it doesn't do much real "news", does it?
>>
>> The bulk of its programming, at least what little of it I've seen,
>> consists of talk shows.
>>
>> Why are you folks so fixated on Fox? Can't you tolerate one single TV
>> outlet which doesn't follow your line?
>
> What line would that be?
>
> What most people would like to hear from a "news" outlet is an unbiased
> reporting of the facts from both sides, allowing the reader or listener
> to draw his own conclusions.
I, for one would sign up for that in a second. Haven't seen a news channel
like that since the early 70s.
At least I now have a choice of which direction I want my news slanted and
MUCH more important a choice of what news these channels choose to carry.
Gip Nacilbuper
Now THERE's a crock of right wing shit!
Haven't you been watching HANNITY and colmes?
--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee—that says: Fool
me once, shame on [pause] shame on you. [Pause] Fool me [long,
uncomfortable, agonizing
pause] you can't get fooled again."
George W. Bush, Sept. 18, 2002
Gip Nacilbuper
On the contrary, Fox is GOP-TV and the biggest goddam liars
and propagandists in the business!
David Galehouse
"Gip Nacilbuper" <_> wrote in message news:40c6...@nntp.zianet.com...
> Ihatekerie Sosumi wrote:
>
> > "Muad'Dib" <Muad'D...@dia.gov> wrote in message
> > news:280520041329246330%Muad'D...@dia.gov...
> >
> >>In article <a5d48e7c.04052...@posting.google.com>, harpoo
> >><harp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Calling FNC biased is a true cop-out.
> >>
> >>No, it's called telling the truth, something Fox News seldom does.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the contrary, FOX is about the only network that DOES tell the truth!
> >
> >
> On the contrary, Fox is GOP-TV and the biggest goddam liars
> and propagandists in the business!
>
Fox gave the WH Clarke's backgrounder after Clarke blew the whistle on the
idiots in the WH. Backgrounders are never released. Keep in mind, Fox didn't
report the information in the backgrounder (which would have been an obvious
break from the protocol practiced by all major new organizations with
regards to backgrounders), but *leaked* the information to the WH which then
leaked it back to Fox to report! Oh, yeah! That's one honest news
organization. And, oh yeah! That's one honest administration! Not, in both
cases! Don't you morons see you're being played?
You Fox/Bush lovers are the biggest bunch of anti-American liars and/or
idiots I've ever seen!