Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biased media coverage causes misconception of Iraq war; Foxnews bashing, FR praising?
BATT ^ | 11/05/03 | Collins Ezeanyim

Posted on 11/05/2003 8:33:55 AM PST by Pikamax

Biased media coverage causes misconception of Iraq war

By Collins Ezeanyim Last spring, a Battalion columnist argued the then-nascent war in Iraq was theologically unsound. In the column, it was stated there was no reliable evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The column resulted in e-mails from Aggies who disagreed with this fact, despite President George W. Bush telling reporters on Sept. 17, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11," according to The Associated Press. Yet due to biased media coverage of the war, a frustrating number of Americans continue to believe Iraq was somehow involved in 9-11. To ensure that the American public is able to make well-informed opinions on such an important decision, news outlets must be upfront with their biases.

According to one study, titled "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War," the reason why Americans are seemingly misinformed involves the popularity of the Fox News Network.

Released jointly by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks in early October, the report revealed those who use Fox as their primary news source were "more likely than average to have misperceptions."

One misperception the report focused on included the belief that there was solid evidence demonstrating an Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The report also focused on the mistaken beliefs many Americans had that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that the majority of the world supported Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. A staggering 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these misperceptions, and 45 percent believed all three.

On the other end of the spectrum, it was discovered that those who use PBS and NPR as their main news source were the least likely to believe these misperceptions. Only 23 percent believed one, and a barely noticeable 4 percent believed in all three.

It is no secret that Fox News is a conservative network. Anyone who analyzes the channel recognizes this. Being a conservative network is not necessarily a bad thing, but Fox executives need to admit they do lean to the right.

Real problems occur if one lets his ideological bias distort the way the news is reported. For example, some may argue that the demographics of the Fox audience will lead them to believe the stated misperceptions. But even when controlling for demographics and ideological bias, the PIPA/KN study showed people who used Fox as their main news source were likely to believe falsehoods about the Iraq war. In fact, the level of belief in misperceptions increased the more one watched Fox News.

This is truly frightening and does not bode well for the state of political discourse in the United States. Obviously, people will disagree over the interpretation of facts, but it is vital that they be the same set of facts.

When a huge influence such as Fox distorts the news to suit its agenda, the American public will base important decisions, such as whether a pre-emptive war is justified, based on an ideological bias.

Online magazine Salon.com recently ran an interview with Charles Reina, who worked for six years at Fox as a producer, copy editor and writer. He claims a daily memo posted on the Fox computer system often contained instructions on how to slant the day's news to make it as pro-Bush as possible.

Anyone who still needs convincing that Fox has an agenda should consider the events of March 28, when the Fox News Ticker on Sixth Avenue in Manhattan mocked war protesters. One message read "War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!" Another asked, "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them."

So Fox has and has had a pro-war agenda. This is OK as long as it and others who supported the war based their reasoning on unbiased facts.

It is possible to deliver undisputable facts even if one's bias is known, which is why Fox News should admit its bias to the American public. For instance, freerepublic.com is "an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the Web." Yet it often contains links to informative articles. Salon.com's editors lean left, yet it is one of the better information sources on the Web and in the past has given voice to conservative writers such as David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan. This is a real example of being "fair and balanced." This is a mantra that Fox seemingly doesn't take seriously.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiwarmovement; barfalert; foxbashing; foxnews; freerepublic; mediabias; salon; salondeathwatch; texas; texasandm

1 posted on 11/05/2003 8:33:56 AM PST by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
This piece of trash was already posted here
2 posted on 11/05/2003 8:39:45 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
This is a mantra that Fox seemingly doesn't take seriously.

Nevermind Geraldo, Van Susteren, Chris Wallace, Alan Colmes, etc...

I guess its only balanced if ALL hosts of any show not be registered republican or have an opinion.

3 posted on 11/05/2003 8:41:04 AM PST by smith288 ((( ‹(•¿•)› )))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
It is possible to deliver undisputable facts even if one's bias is known, which is why Fox News should admit its bias to the American public.

Why no cry for the liberal media to admit their bias? Perhaps the author is a hypocrit who doesn't even acknowledge her own bias.

4 posted on 11/05/2003 8:41:22 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
>> One misperception the report focused on included the belief that there was solid evidence demonstrating an Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The report also focused on the mistaken beliefs many Americans had that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that the majority of the world supported Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. A staggering 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these misperceptions, and 45 percent believed all three.

On the other end of the spectrum, it was discovered that those who use PBS and NPR as their main news source were the least likely to believe these misperceptions. Only 23 percent believed one, and a barely noticeable 4 percent believed in all three.

It is no secret that Fox News is a conservative network. Anyone who analyzes the channel recognizes this. Being a conservative network is not necessarily a bad thing, but Fox executives need to admit they do lean to the right.
<<

A classic case of defending against bias by charging the enemy with bias. If Fox is conservative, NPR and PBS are just as blatently liberal.
So, liberal listeners are less likely to believe what they don't want to believe in the first place. They have as many or more misperceptions fostered by the liberal leaning media.
5 posted on 11/05/2003 8:45:48 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Note how the "expert on accuracy" who wrote this article casually treated three different concepts as if they were the same:

-- no reliable evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

-- no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.

-- belief that Iraq was somehow involved in 9-11.

In fact, there is evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. There is no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11, but it's not impossible that he could have been involved. It wouldn't necessarily be wrong to hold such a belief. It would be wrong to think that Saddam's involvement in 9-11 had been proved.

Also, note that the "proof" of Fox's flaws is merely statistical. If the accusation were true, the critics ought to be able to find instances where Fox News actually reported that Saddam was involved in 9-11. AFAIK there were no such instances.
6 posted on 11/05/2003 8:55:58 AM PST by december12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
no reliable evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The column resulted in e-mails from Aggies who disagreed with this fact, despite President George W. Bush telling reporters on Sept. 17, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11,"

Well, real news sources gave the rest of the story. To wit,

"Bush: Saddam not involved in 9/11," By TERENCE HUNT, September 17, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001-- disputing a notion held by a majority of Americans. (AP /Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." [end excerpt, my emphasis]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/09/17/195433-ap.html

Mr. Collins Ezeanyim is not very bright, is he? He blasts news distortions by his own news distortions. No wonder he considers NPR and such as unbiased.

I listen to talk radio virtually 24/7. There have been none that I recall stating that Saddam had direct connections to 9/11 -- though a NY court decided to accept the connection given that no one representing Saddam showed up to defend against a lawsuit. There has been talk on radio and elsewhere of such things as Salman Pak and documents discovered linking Saddam and Al Qaeda. Plus of course the statement by President Bush himself -- a statement that is missing in about seventy percent of the reporting thus DISTORTING THE NEWS.

7 posted on 11/05/2003 9:25:38 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: december12
Personally, I find Fox's "Fox and Friends" coverage of Iraq quite leftist---it begins every day with the latest casualty or bombing or explosion. It's one thing to report the helo crash, which indeed was a major event. As sad as it sounds, though, it is not "news" when a single American soldier walks over a land mine. We must get beyond that mentality---it's one of the big components of the "western way of war" that we value life, but this comes back to bite us at the home front where democracies want wars to end quickly and cleanly. THE BRITISH FOUGHT COMMIE GUERILLAS FOR TEN YEARS IN MALASIA before winning!
8 posted on 11/05/2003 9:46:45 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Online magazine Salon.com recently ran an interview with Charles Reina, who worked for six years at Fox as a producer, copy editor and writer. He claims a daily memo posted on the Fox computer system often contained instructions on how to slant the day's news to make it as pro-Bush as possible.

Obligatory Salon Stock DEATHWATCH BUMP"


9 posted on 11/05/2003 8:04:35 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smith288
What are Chris Wallace's liberal credentials? I think it was Merv Griffin who said the other night what good friends of the Reagan's Chris' dad was.
10 posted on 11/05/2003 9:37:00 PM PST by Cosmo (Liberalism is for Girls!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson