Posted on 10/17/2003 8:03:21 AM PDT by jdege
BY BRIAN LAMBERT
Pioneer Press
One of Jay Leno's best shticks is "Jaywalking," when he manages to find more or less average Americans who know, or at least appear to know, almost nothing about the world beyond Entertainment Weekly.
Show them a picture of Abe Lincoln, and they're stumped. "Is he the guy from Smashmouth?" Ask them to name two countries that border the United States, and you get, "Covina? Azuza? I don't know." It's scary - these people could be called for jury duty or placed in middle management. But it gets scarier yet, apparently, when you start asking 3,334 randomly selected adult Americans what they think has been going on in Iraq and where they learned what they think they know.
For the past year, the Program on International Policy Attitudes, or PIPA, a consortium organized through the University of Maryland, has been using a California-based research group called Knowledge Networks (and existing Roper polling data) to test what Americans know and how they came to know it.
Since June, PIPA has been refining data that showed disturbing misperceptions related to the following three questions:
- "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"
- "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"
- "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?"
The survey was released late last week, and the news of it was this: Those who cited Fox News as their primary news source were far more likely to harbor fundamental misperceptions about one or more of these three questions than those who cited National Public Radio or PBS as their primary sources for news.
I know, I know. You're shocked.
But for all the anecdotal information, opinions and accusations, here was a comprehensive survey with a thoroughly professional, scientific methodology. We don't get enough of that.
Eighty percent of the 3,334 respondents said their primary news source was television or radio networks. Of that figure, 18 percent cited Fox News as their primary news source. A mere 3 percent cited NPR or PBS. (Thirty percent cited two or more sources; CNN 16 percent, NBC 14 percent, ABC 11 percent, CBS 9 percent.)
Twenty percent cited newspapers and magazines as their primary news source.
On the question of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida, a frankly startling 67 percent of the Fox News primary-source crowd believed this to be true. It's a claim that was one of the centerpieces of the Bush administration war policy but has never been proved, and, as PIPA asserts, is now largely dismissed by the intelligence community (and lately the White House itself).
It is probably no great solace to NPR and PBS that 16 percent of listeners glued to them also believe the Saddam-Osama link. But last time I checked, 67 percent was more than four times greater than 16 percent.
On the question of whether we have found weapons of mass destruction, a matter of enormous controversy heavily reported in every major source, 33 percent of Fox News watchers somehow still believe that we have. (The president at one point said we did.) Only 17 percent of those consuming mostly print media thought so, and only 11 percent of the NPR-PBS crowd was operating under the same rather astonishing misperception.
On the matter of world opinion, 35 percent of Fox News-viewing respondents believe world opinion supported the U.S. war with Iraq, while only 5 percent of the NPR-PBS crowd believed this in the face of almost daily international criticism and/or consternation.
The study also made an effort to gauge the quantity of time spent consuming news from a specific source and the relation between additional exposure and misperceptions of these three issues.
The conclusion: "While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. (My emphasis.) Only those who primarily get their news from print media, and to some extent those who primarily watch CNN, have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."
I wish I could say this surprised me.
And which part of that do you not understand? Look, even the BBC doesn't claim the war is over. They normally refer to it as "since major hositilities ended..."
If you're looking for technicalities over which to quibble, I'll up you one. The war cannot be over because it never started. Congress never declared war, therefore there cannot have ever been a war in Iraq. You see? This is slimy lawyer type quibbling. We could go on and on parsing for the rest of eternity and never add one iota of intelligent debate to the matter.
The President spoke truthfully, although given the way some members of his audience were certain to interpret his words (to fit their own world-view), it might not have been the wisest thing to say. But he was perfectly right. If you perceive the war is over, this has more to do with the way you want to perceive things than with the way things actually are.
The war is not over in Iraq nor did it begin in March.
Because we got it right? Yes, it is amazing that we haven't swallowed the Demonrat lies.
Today's post on point
Try that again. I messed up the link/URL ...Did you see post #14 ?? LOL ! Thanks, metalboy ! ...
No, he announced "the end of major hostilities" in Iraq - I haven't seen round-the-clock bombing missions or major troop movements lately - have you? Please try to get your attributions correct. (Hint: avoid the NY Slimes version - you automatically know it's wrong.)
By Andrew F. Tully
To most observers, the war in Iraq is over, and the responsibilities of American and British troops there are shifting from combat to peacekeeping. But last night, U.S. President George W. Bush, in an address to the American people, would not say that hostilities have ended. Some say this is because an official declaration that the war is over would require U.S. forces to release Iraqi prisoners of war, who may still have information integral in the search for weapons of mass destruction or the country's deposed president, Saddam Hussein, and other government officials.
Washington, 2 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. President George W. Bush is declaring that significant fighting is over in Iraq, but he is careful not to declare a formal end to the conflict.
Bush made the announcement last night (0300 Prague time) in an address to the American people that he delivered from the deck of the aircraft carrier "U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln" in the Pacific Ocean as it steamed to its home port in California from the Persian Gulf.
Bush said: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
But, the U.S. president said, more work remains: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated."
(in other words, major combat has ended, but combat operations are ongoing)
Some analysts say Bush wants to avoid saying the war is over because he is not ready to release prisoners of war. They note that some of them might, under interrogation, be able to lead allied investigators to Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction, to high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's government, or even to Hussein himself.
A law professor who specializes in human rights issues, Ralph Steinhardt of George Washington University in Washington, tells RFE/RL that he takes a dim view of Bush's decision to keep Iraqi prisoners in detention by refusing to declare the war over.
Steinhardt says Bush and his military advisers clearly want as much time as they can get to extract valuable information from the prisoners. But he acknowledges that the Bush administration appears to closely follow the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war.
"This is not an administration that has taken a lot of care with international law generally. I guess it's nice to know that there are some provisions that they do think are to be honored," he said. "So I assume that the Bush administration is not going to pick and choose within the Geneva Convention but will apply the convention as a whole."
Steinhardt notes that previously, Bush has disregarded the will of the international community by refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gases, disregarded the United Nations in pursuing the war against Iraq, and even tryed to renegotiate an international treaty designed to discourage tobacco use.
This does not mean, however, that the Bush administration is embarking on a new course in which it plans to be more cooperative with the international community, according to Arthur Helton. He is the director of peace and conflict studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a policy research center in New York, and studies issues of international law and human rights.
Helton tells RFE/RL that it is unfair to regard Bush as utterly unilateralist. But he adds that the American president is careful to choose which international accords he endorses and which he ignores when U.S. interests are at stake.
"The U.S. is not in any sense a complete international outlaw, and it certainly does address questions of international law," Helton said. "That doesn't mean, however, that this is a new direction of engagement on the part of the United States toward its allies and former allies."
And, according to Helton, it may be too soon for anyone to say that the war in Iraq is in fact over. While armies are no longer meeting on battlefields, he notes that U.S. and British forces are still maintaining only tenuous security in the country.
In particular, Helton noted the recent confrontations in the Iraqi city of Al-Fallujah, west of Baghdad, in which more than a dozen Iraqi civilians have been killed by U.S. troops.
But Helton says he also accepts the notion that Bush is more interested in questioning Iraqi prisoners than in avoiding a premature declaration of an end to hostilities.
Still, Helton argues, the Geneva Convention does not prevent the United States from trying to arrest enemies that they suspect are guilty of violating international laws.
"If [U.S. officials] have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein and other key figures in his toppled regime committed war crimes or crimes against humanity," he said, "they could still seek to apprehend them and put them on trial, even after hostilities had ended."
James Ross, the senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, agrees. He tells RFE/RL that there is no provision in the Geneva Convention requiring the immediate repatriation of prisoners of war after a formal declaration that the conflict has ended.
Second, Ross says, any prisoner formally accused of a crime related to his conduct during the war may be held until his case is adjudicated.
Finally, according to Ross, international law focuses on people who are believed to be responsible for significant violations. That, he says, usually means high-ranking civilian and military officials, not foot soldiers:
"The concern is not with the average foot soldier -- who should, quite frankly, be returned, and apparently a number of them have been returned -- but with high-ranking Iraqi government officials. Under the Geneva Convention, even after the close of hostilities, any person who remains an imperative threat to security can be detained."
Ross says the concern of Human Rights Watch is whether U.S. and British forces hold prisoners of war for what it believes to be an unreasonable length of time, regardless of whether anyone has formally declared that hostilities have ended:
"I don't know what [U.S. forces] have in mind in terms of holding [prisoners of war], but obviously [Human Rights Watch] would object to any substantial length of time in which POWs are being held when the active hostilities are over."
Ross also says U.S. military officials must be mindful of their own troops, who may warrant incarceration for their own misbehavior during the war. He cited the incidents in Al-Fallujah, as well as cases in which American soldiers fired on civilians who refused to stop their vehicles at military checkpoints.
My understanding is that definitive evidence of Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration exists. For example, the al Qaida training camps in the country. My guess is that the liberals are hiding behind the word "closely" in the question and simply relying on the Goebbels Big Lie methodology.
"Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"
My understanding is that such weapons have been found (e.g., botulinum toxin), along with ample evidence of prohibited programs for developing additional such weapons (e.g., mobile biowarfare production labs, centrifuge plans and parts). "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?"
Most Americans have supported the Iraq action at most times since the action was initiated.
The war began in 1990. UN 1441 was a resolution that stated Iraq broke the terms of the original ceasefire. This year was a re-engagement of hostilities.
EXACTLY!! Maaaaan!!! Can you imagine?? I should send all those quotes to the RNC and tell them that. AAAh that woudl be beautiful! It would just expose them on a major scale. I tell you though, if California is any kind of an example, all that these dems are doing is digging themselves a bigger and bigger hole and people are going to vote them out of existence, the way of the Whigs, which would be daaaamn fine by me!
Bingo, we have a winner!
And if I can find a group of people who think the print media you rely on is hopelessly biased, then what does that do to your feelings of superiority? Is it possible that your favorite print media resources have "misinformed" you?
Exactly.
Notice how the left is taking all these cheap shots at FOX since they beat out CNN and became #1 on cable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.