Polls Suggest Media Failure in PreWar Coverage: Public Believed Saddam Behind 9-11, Has Nukes (BARF)

Editor & Publisher ^ | March 26, 2003 | Ari Berman

[Timesink]

MARCH 26, 2003
Polls Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War Coverage
Public Believed Saddam Was Behind 9-11, Has Nukes

By Ari Berman

NEW YORK -- Opinion

Thousands of American soldiers have marched into Iraq, bombs are falling, and oil fields are ablaze. After the shooting stops, press attention probably will focus on our pursuit of Saddam Hussein's henchmen, our search for hidden stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and our "securing the peace" for a democratic Iraq. But when the war dies down, editors and media analysts should catch their breath and ask themselves: How much did press coverage (or lack of coverage) contribute to the public backing for a pre-emptive invasion without the support of the United Nations?

When it came down to crunch time, the American people -- as evidenced by opinion polls conducted after President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam on March 17 -- supported the attack by about a 2-to-1 margin. Some of this reflected the usual rallying 'round the flag that accompanies every war, but the truth is, Bush always had strong (if nervous) popular support.

This support in the polls long perplexed ardent critics of U.S. policy, who pointed out that the public rallied to the war even though, according to the most-recent surveys, a vast majority of our citizens believed that the attack would increase, not decrease, the terrorist threat and would hurt, not help, our economy.

So, what motivated Americans to back their president throughout the winter of discontent -- when much of the rest of the world strongly disagreed with the need for war now?

Of course, there were many reasons, ranging from partisan politics to genuine hatred and fear of the evil Saddam. But there was another key factor: Somehow, despite the media's exhaustive coverage of the post-9/11 world and the Saddam threat, a very large segment of the American public remained un- or misinformed about key issues related to the Iraqi crisis. Let's look at a few recent polls.

In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed to give this appropriate attention?

In the same sample, 41% said that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons, which not even the Bush administration claimed. Despite being far off base in crucial areas, 66% of respondents claimed to have a "good understanding" of the arguments for and against going to war with Iraq.

Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N. weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction." Neither Hans Blix nor Mohamed ElBaradei ever said they found proof of this.

The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%.

The significance of this is suggested by the finding, in the same survey, that 32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in supporting terrorists as the "main reason" for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was "one reason."

Knowing this was a crucial element of his support -- even though he could not prove the 9/11 connection -- the president nevertheless tried to bolster the link. Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times during his March 6 prime-time news conference, linking it with Saddam Hussein "often in the same breath," Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor observed last week. "Bush never pinned the blame for the [9/11] attacks directly on the Iraqi president," Feldmann wrote. "Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public."

Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told me last week: "It's very rare to find a perception that's been so disputed by experts yet firmly held by the public. There's almost nothing the public doesn't believe about Saddam Hussein."

The question, again, is: Did the press do a solid enough job in informing the public about the key contested issues? "If the U.S. war against Iraq goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war," Feldmann conceded. "But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire." Newspapers could be, too.

Now that the prewar march is behind us, let's hope the press does a better job of informing Americans in a post-Saddam world.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online

---

Ari Berman is a reporter for E&P.

[Timesink]

Translation: The public is stupid, and it's because We The Press haven't done an adequate job of indoctrination. What a Clymer this guy is.

Editor&Publisher is a trade mag for the newspaper industry and has always had a far-left bias, but this is obnoxious even for them.

[The Old Hoosier]

E&P may be left-wing, but explain to me how he's wrong. Are you suggeting there's an Iraq/Sept. 11 connection? Do you have evidence?

[tentmaker]

There doesn't have to be an explicit connection. In fact, Al-Qaida and Hussein have some drastic ideological differences that prevent them from being "natural allies". But that doesn't mean they haven't lent support to each other in order to attack us. And it should be obvious that there is much common territory between a loose-knit international terrorist organization that hates America and a terrorist state that hates America. Our fight is against terror in all forms, not only those that shake hands with each other.

[The Old Hoosier]

There doesn't have to be an explicit connection...But that doesn't mean they haven't lent support to each other in order to attack us.

So the proof is that there isn't any evidence?

Listen, a lot of people are going to be very grateful for what we're doing, and I hope we win and win fast, and I love America and I hate wacko protestors. But this campaign isn't doing us any good, and I fear for the precedents and possibly even the consequences.

If we want to destroy Islamic terrorism, the answer is to find a way to stop buying oil from the ME, and ultimately to stop using oil altogether, because that's what lets them spread their terrorist worldview and arm themselves against us. This invasion does not further that goal in any way.

[The Old Hoosier]

Also note that we're not invading Brazil, even though they have a communist president who has publicly expressed a desire to develop nuclear weapons. That's because we know exactly what kind of terrorism is a real threat to us.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I am suspect of the polling. I'd be curious to see the demographics. I don't think Brazil is the South American country you meant to mention. Try the Letter V.

[Egregious Philbin]

B is for Brazil: Brazil's New Prez Promises To Build Nuclear Weapons

[The Old Hoosier]

No, I meant Brazil. Do a web search on "Lula Da Silva."

[Conspiracy Guy]

Then both Brazil and Venezuala need to be added to the list. Are they torturing, raping, and killing their own citizens yet?

[Conspiracy Guy]

Got a heads up from another poster. I somehow missed Brazil jumping on the we want nukes wagon. I knew Venezuala was on there. Sorry for the miscue. While commies are a problem has there been increasing reports of torturing, raping, and killing of their own people yet.

[Cicero]

Yes, there's at least some evidence. Mohammed Atta flew to Prague specially to meet an Iraqi intelligence agent. Czech officials continue to insist this is true despite George Tenet's denials.

Iraq also is known to have sponsored numerous terrorist training camps.

Iraq is presently hosting al Qaeda terrorists.

But more important, Iraq is a keystone in the generalized Islamic terror network. They have the weapons, the malign will, the connections and the expertise to cause immense damage to us. We can't afford to leave them standing.

[Timesink]

E&P may be left-wing, but explain to me how he's wrong. Are you suggeting there's an Iraq/Sept. 11 connection? Do you have evidence?

My beef is with his suggestion that the American public consists entirely of imbeciles who would obviously be antiwar if only The All-Knowing, All-Seeing News Media had done a better job of indoctrinating the Sheeple. I couldn't care less about the existence or nonexistence of the Iraq/9-11 connection.

[The Old Hoosier]

My beef is with his suggestion that the American public consists entirely of imbeciles who would obviously be antiwar if only The All-Knowing, All-Seeing News Media had done a better job of indoctrinating the Sheeple.

OK, I get the point about patronizing media morons. Still, I think that if they hadn't previously squandered their credibility with their obvious left-wing biases, and if they had done a better job explaining this, we wouldn't have so many FReepers swearing by David Frum instead of swearing at him.

[js1138]

We've spent decades dealing with Communists who had nukes. The question of war arises when the leadership of a country is psychotic.

[Timesink]

OK, I get the point about patronizing media morons. Still, I think that if they hadn't previously squandered their credibility with their obvious left-wing biases, and if they had done a better job explaining this, we wouldn't have so many FReepers swearing by David Frum instead of swearing at him.

I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure; Frum's said so damn much self-aggrandizing stuff over the last few months. :)

[The Old Hoosier]

Mohammed Atta flew to Prague specially to meet an Iraqi intelligence agent. Czech officials continue to insist this is true despite George Tenet's denials.

After the tourist guy, this is probably the most persistent 9-11 urban legend. Last I saw, the Czech government was insisting that the "Mohammed Atta" who went there was an entirely different person than the Mohammed Atta of 9-11. At best, the story is of very dubious veracity at this point, especially considering that we do know where Mohammed Atta was throughout the year prior to his mass murder.

True, the terror camps are in Iraq, as Powell told the UN. But he also admitted that they are not in Saddam's part of Iraq.

I don't mean to defend the man--the atrocious behavior of his government in this conflict is really enough to make anyone pro-war--but let's not try to fool ourselves with this non-existent Iraq-al Qaeda connection.

[WL-law]

Are you suggeting there's an Iraq/Sept. 11 connection? Do you have evidence?

There's an INCREDIBLE amount of evidence linking Iraq to the anthrax attacks, and further linking the anthrax attacks to the 9/11 hijackers. Are you possibly UNAWARE of this?

[WL-law]

Last I saw, the Czech government was insisting that the "Mohammed Atta" who went there was an entirely different person than the Mohammed Atta of 9-11. At best, the story is of very dubious veracity at this point, especially considering that we do know where Mohammed Atta was throughout the year prior to his mass murder.

That's NY Times bullshit. The lib press has been working overtime to SUPRESS logical analysis into the Iraq- 9/11 connection, and the public is smart enough to see past this.

[Tall_Texan]

The question of war arises when the leadership of a country is psychotic.

Then we should have bombed the White House sometime in 1998.

[js1138]

We did, didn't we? Not effectively, but we tried.