Slashdot Mirror

The sanctions were killing 50,000 a year. The war has killed less than a third of that number. How much longer would you have wanted those sanctions to go on? Another half a million dead? A million? Two?

I do not dispute there were potential humanitarian issues at stake. It's not nearly as simple as you suggest, but I really don't have to bother arguing about it at all. Why? Because you are simply changing looking for an excuse and to to cover up the fact that the original poster broter was correct and the report The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters was correct and the majority of Bush supporters are missinformed and you were wrong when you claimed I "parrotted news misrepresentations" and Bush lied to the US and to the world to justify the war.

If we should have invaded Iraq based on that humanitarian justification as you now claim, then Bush should have stated that justification at the time. Then the American public and the world could have evaluated the legitimacy or flaws in that justifcation and properly prepared and acted to best fulfill that justification - if it was valid. We did none of that, and it is quite obvious that we are currently doing a lousey job of fulfilling that aim. Iraq is an absolute mess. If we presume that justification turned out to be valid and had we presented it to the world we most likely would have had international help in fulfilling that aim much better. And we would not have lost the trust of our allies for lying and we would not have causing tens of thousands to flood into the ranks of terrorists and we would not have wound up alienating all of our allies and lost their popular support and lost their police support and lost their intelligence support and lost their military support and we would not have crippled our capability to hunt down and catch or kill terrorists across the globe.

-

Kerry just seems deceptive.

As opposed to Bush, who has had his blatant lies exposed on several occasions?

Maybe you're one of the people mentioned in one of the several studies like this one.

I don't like Kerry either -- but I'd rather have someone that's *probably* worthless than someone who has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. (unfortunately, I live in a state that's going to go to Bush. So I'm voting for Nader.)

P.S. log in you cowardly shit

--Jeremy

The three justices considered to be up for replacement are all conservative.

Bullshit. Pardon my french.

The liberal-to-conservative ranking is:
+0.44 **Stevens age 84 CANCER**
+0.36 **Ginsburg age 71 CANCER**
+0.32 Breyer age 66
+0.31 Souter age 65
-0.10 **O'Conner age 74 CANCER**
-0.17 Kennedy age 68
-0.30 **Rehnquist age 80 CANCER**
-0.40 Scalia age 68
-0.40 Thomas age 56

The four oldest judges also happen to be the four diagnosed with cancer. These four judges as a group are EXTREMELY slanted liberal. It includes the TWO MOST LIBERAL judges on the court, O'Conner in the center, and Rhenquist the most moderate of the conseravative trio.

The most conservative member, Thomas, also happens to be the youngest. The second most conservative, Scalia, is going to certainly going to be sticking around for a long time as well, and is in perfect health as far as I know.

The only decision George W. Bush would be making would be one to keep the court in balance.

It's amazing how flexible the radical conservative logic is. When it suits them the three most right-wing conservatives are somehow balanced and magically in the middle, yet at other times the two most liberal judges of the court magically become conservative when they are at risk of being replaced. Oh, and lets not forget the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media, chuckle. A media that has done an absolutely appaling job of informing the public about the facts while Bush is promoting factually FALSE beliefs about the Iraq invasion.

If Kerry is elected any judges he appoints will have to be centrist mainstream judges, as they have to pass the Republican Senate. If Bush is elected we are going to get an insanely lopsided Supreme Court WAY off from the mainstream American center majority.

-

Wow, I'm smarter than both of them. Vote for me!

(Stupidity has nothing to do with IQ or even SAT score. It has to do with how well-informed you are.)

Why exactly do "[The US citizens] (by and large) hate the French president"?

It's just the fanatical Bush supporters, the ones who live in an entirely different reality filled with entirely different "facts". They generally beleive that we did find WMD's in Iiiiqar, or that there was an active WMD program, that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack or otherwise supported Al Quaeda, who think we still have the vitally needed international support for hunting down terrorists across the globe.

And based on that view of reality, obviously the French are aiding the terrorists. They are all obviously currupted by the Oil for Food program. And most of all they simply want to see a weak America so they can puff-up their own relative importance and strength.

But as I said, that's the Bush supporters. The rest of us may have chucked at the "Freedom Fries" stuff, and laughed at the French-surrendering jokes, but we in no way hate the French or your President.

I'd say 20% of the problem is our administration intentionally deceiving the public, 20% of the problem is idiot people beleiving the administration's baloney, but the majority of the problem is that our media has rolled over for the Whitehouse. Immediately after 9/11 attack we all naturally came together in unity and support. After the attack any critisism of the country or of the president was simply UnAmerican and Not Done. While the effect has faded, it is not gone. The press has been reluctant to carry news that was critical of the US or of the President. When they do critique the administration and their statements and their 'evidence', the media tends to softpeddle that critique.

Half of the country is outraged at the lies the administration has foisted on us and on the world, and the other half still beleives those lies. It is human nature that people do not like to find out that they are wrong - that they have been fooled. Bush supporters are emotionally invested in not accepting evidence that they have been fooled, and that they have been supporting a war that most of them would have opposed had they known there were in fact no WMD's and no WMD programs.

The people on each side have a very different view of reality. This election is increadibly polarized. A one or two percent shift in voting will throw the electorial college vote massively one way or the other. There seems to be good reason to believe that that major shift will be in Kerry's direction. And hopfully after a Kerry election the public will become more accurately informed.

-

ignorance != mental illness. It's quite normal.

Which get their international news from international sources. Even my local paper has stories like how some guy in Latvia was injured when a bicycle fell off the back of a truck.

It doesn't matter if the 4 or 5 megaconglomerates "get news from international sources" when they wind up filtering what they present to the US public. Since the 9/11 attack and our time of "unity and support" and the combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, they simply have not been carring "UnAmerican" views unfavorable to the US or the administration or Bush. When they do carry critical views they tend to softpeddle it.

The effect was extremely intense just after 9/11 and has diminished since then, but it is hardly gone.

Properly done research does not start with an assumption.

What makes you claim it was improper or that it started with an assumption? Just because you don't like the results it must be biased?

The paper I linked, "The seperate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters", was a conclusion paper that naturally popped out of about the highest quality academic research you can get. They did an impeccible survey, and when they did an after-the-fact breakdown by self-reported presidential prefference the results were blatant.

Furthermore, this study polarizes its population into the two main political groups first

False.

rather than comparing the entire population and breaking it down into different sets of groups to find trends later.

That is exactly what they did.

You can find the primary survey here. You will see that is a well designed and scientific survey. In this case the subject was extracting general public views on and perceptions of the Iraq events. Note that the survey participants have been taught and experienced in reading and properly answering this sort of survey.

It was preformed by an acedemic institution the highest quality survey population and controls. They have a lot invested in that standardized and properly controlled survey population - they set up the survey population with free internet access and a TV-based survey computer. Providing internet access and specialized computer hardware to about a thousand people in a nationwide standardized population is no small task. They and preform a large number of surveys on that control population.

They have preformed studies on the Amercian public's oppinions and perceptions on countless international issues. View them here. Everything from attitutudes and perceptions on global warming to international trade to the UN to human rights to China to biotechnology to North Korea to Africa and more. And many of the recent studies have naturally focused on the most pressing modern international issues - the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq and Terrorism and WMD's.

As their focus is attitudes and perceptions, they also focus on the media involvement in forming those views.

This source is as good as it gets. You just didn't like the result and found it easier to assume it was a partisan gimmick. It isn't.

The researchers asked questions skewed towards the viewpoint that they supported, and asked hypothetical questions that have no useful purpose outside of supporting their beliefs.

The questions were designed to extract the public's beliefs and perceptions. Even if you want to claim the questians were designed with premeditated bias, you still cannot dispute the extreme disparity of the results along the lines of self-described presidential prefferences. Self described Bush supporters and self described Kerry supporters tend to have extremely different views.

These questions are phrased in a way that assumes that one side has an incorrect view. The paper is peppered with vitriolic statements which declare that one side is wrong.

HELLO!!!!! Some beliefs are in fact f

The US people have got to realise that the words 'compromise' and 'diplomacy' will get them a lot further

Actually most "US people" do realize that. The problem is that as far as "Intellectual Property" laws and various treaties the people are entirely oblivious to what is going on. And as for Iraq and the 'War on Terrorism', a great many people have been deceived and believe we *have* had compromise and diplomacy and honest relations with the world. Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that most of the world (and our allies) generally support Bush and the US's invasion of Iraq and our terrorism efforts, or that world oppinion is at least neutral. Most Americans have no idea how badly Bush has alienated out allies and ruined our global relationships and support.

Some Americans do realize the problem and are attempting a local "regime change" in this election, other Americans have been deceived, but then of course there are also a small number of nutjobs. For example that report was posted on Free Reublic website (radical right-wing nutjobs) and naturally those loons somehow managed to rationalize global opposition as a GOOD thing. Yeahhhhh... those evil Norwegians only show 7% Bush support because they are jealous and want a "weak America". Sigh.

I'm more horrified at the huge number of people who have been decieved and may elect the next president than the small number of wackos.

-

He was not refering to censorship of swearing. He was refering to censorship of stories and positions and ideas. There are many stories the 4 or 5 media megaconglomerates simply will not touch.

Teh simplest example of media megaconglomerate bias and self-censorship was the FCC revised media ownership rules to rescue media megacorps who had already violated the law. Obviously big media isn't going to be happy with their employees reporting on the fact that their employers had violated the law.

It also has a more subtle but incredibly damaging effect in that much of the public has been mislead into a false perception of reality.

-

If having political and news coverage skewed to the right results in half of our voting public being wildy missinformed about the facts then we have a serious problem. And even if you beleive the general US media is slanted left, the fact is that it recently HAS slanted right on many issues because after the 9/11 attacks we all came together in "patriotic unity and support", and that much of that carries into the war situation, and our media has been reluctant to cover facts unfavorable to the Whitehouse. Our media has been reluctant to discredit false information and false perceptions promoted by the Whitehouse. Our media has been reluctant to present just how much the whole world (including our allies) dissapproves of and distrusts the US. Our media is releuctant to cover the fact that we have been caught LYING. Reluctant to cover the fact that our allies - From canada to Australia to Norway to Japan and on and on and on - that they no longer support our anti-terrorism efforts. And how the hell are we supposed to hunt down and catch or kill terrorist cells hiding in allied nations when we no longer have their public support and intelligence support and police support and military support?

After being attacked on 9/11, and when engaged in combat

We are "coming together in patriotic unity and uncritical support", but we are blinded to the negative facts and that we have been caught lying and that we have alienated our allies.

You cannot seriously claim Bush is anything but radical right wing, and since 9/11 even the supposedly "left-slanted" media (which is right-slanted by international standards) has been unable to outright criticize the president, and softpeddled any counter-information while echoing the the whitehouse's press conferences. Tehy have been uncritically carrying that right-wing message, and they have been ineffective in refuting any flasehoods and missinformation in that right-wing message.

-

Satarize all you like, the fact is that the typical European sees a far more diverse set of news sources than the typical American. At the very least Europeans also pick up on US news sources in addition to their own news. The vast majorioty of Americans get essentially all their news through 4 or 5 media megaconglomerates.

The issue is particularly critical because our current presidential election will turn on just how extensively the American public is missinformed. That survey explains why the country has become so polarized and why this election is so heated. The two sides have different perceptions of reality. Specifically note how many Americans are wildly missinformed about the views and support of our allies.

-

This doesn't explain why Bush voters understand the issues less...

72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.

Unfavorables? LOL. As I said, we are not talking about the lesser of "ho-hum". Bush has insanely polarized the country. Half the country would rather elect a corpse than tolerate 4 more years of Bush.

As for the rest of the world, yeah, they were sympathetic until we actually did something

We had full support, even general support in Islamic nations, when we went after Afghanistan.

Now the entire world - including the population of our staunchest allies - dispise Bush and no longer trust the US and no longer support the US's anti-terrorism efforts. We got caught lying to justify the Iraq invasion. Our own intelligence agencies didn't beleive the yellowcake uranium story. Our own intelligence agencies knew the aluminimum tubes were ill-suited to uranium enrichment. Our own intelligence knew there was no link between Iraq and 9/11 and that Saddam and Al Qaeda dispised each other. There were no WMD's, no evidence of WMD's, there was no such program about WMD's, no evidence of any WMD program, and there was no actual Iraq-Al Qaeda link. Iraq was not a threat to our national security.

The administration has been constantly encouraging the US public to believe there were WMD's in Iraq prompting the invasion, or that Iraq had a WMD program, or that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or that there was evidence of any of those things. If you beieve any of those things were true, or you beleive there was evidence for them, then you have been missled. Our own Senate intelligence reports conclude that all of those things are untrue and there was no evidence for them. Yet the majority of Bush supporters believe this misinformation. The administration has been intentionally promoting false perceptions of reality.

I'd rather be feared than loved, if that's what these Islamic nations stand for.

Riiight - evil terrorist Islamic countries like Norway and Mexico and Australia and England and on and on and on. A global survey of over 34,000 people from 35 nations found over 2-to-1 opposition to Bush. If you look at international news it is the US that is viewed as the rouge nation.

How the hell are we supposed to hunt down and kill or imprision terrorist cells hiding in Mexico and Australia and everywhere else, when the populations of those countries do not trust and do not support us and our efforts? Bush has alienated our allies. We have been losing their general public support, police support, intelligence support, military support.

The first Iraq war we had a genuian coalition with over 171,000 international troops supporting us, and we only paid 10 to 20% of the costs. In our recent Iraq invasion Bush is lying in trying to get us to beleive that there was again a coalition. This supposed coalition, after the US and UK, consisted of 2,000 Australian troops and 200 Polish troops. Period. Grand coalition my-ass. And Bush has the gall to say Kerry is "insulting our coalition partners" over 200 Polish troops.

-

Maybe because you shouldn't be voting based on your emotions, but instead based on facts?

Or maybe because of the general ignorance of bush supporters?

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

Since most people seem to think bush supporters don't know what they are voting for, maybe they would like to know of something that refutes that assumption?

I do see your point however, but also theirs. I'm just trying to answer your question, not insult anyone.
PS, I'm Australian, so I don't get to vote :)

The rest of the world certainly isn't stupider than the average Bush supporter.

It isn't that much of an issue of the difference between Bush and Kerry, it's perhaps more of an issue with Bush's track record. Does he deserve re-election after what he's done so far? If someone sees Bush and Kerry as mostly identical, then they should be voting on whether they're happy with Bush's track record.

Apparently, the people who are happy with it are seriously misinformed.

That last one really get me. How can you even watch Fox News and come up with that?

Oh yeah, there's an interview at the end of "To the Point" with the director, Steve Kull.

Interesting that you mention Bush's lack of international support, because that's a fact that seems to elude Bush supporters, who it turns out are the least informed people in the country. Surprised? I didn't think so.

"Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred."

"I stand for nothing other than opposing the incumbent, and I am therefore taking no definitive positions on anything, unless it is possible to take both sides, since the media lets me get away with that."

Even if Kerry literally said that he would still get my vote. And if we assume your comment were literally true, doesn't it merely reflect on just how BAD of a choice for president that Bush is when fully half of the country would elect a corpse before they'd vote for Bush? Bush is a damaging divisive president. We are no longer talking about the usual "lesser of ho-hum". We are talking about a president embroiled in active animosity with half the population. That state of affairs is extremely damaging to the nation.

Maybe you don't like Kerry, but at least half the nation doesn't hate him.

And that's just domestically. In the international arena Bush has been extremely destructive to our international relations and support. We have actively alienated our allies and lost support for our fight against terrorism. Perhaps you haven't been following world news and international surveys, but world oppinion is running more than 2-to-1 against Bush - and that's among our allies. England, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, and on and on and on. I think about the only nation that showed a neutral or better opinion of Bush (and of Bush-led America) was India, and that is primarily due to their pervasive animosity with Pakistan.

After 9/11 we had general support in the fight against terrorists even among most Islamic nations, but obviously we alienated those nations and lost their support long before we alienated our stanchest allies.

Hmmm, I just thought of an amusing parallel. Bush started his presidency with a lagre budget surplus and a large global-good-will-towards-America surplus (triggered by 9/11 sympathy). Bush has managed to turn both into huge deficits.

The separate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters - a nationwide survey and disection of perceived realities.

-

First your sig: Yasser Arafat Endorses Kerry

Chuckle. Kerry's grandfather was Jewish. And in this case I agree with Arafat, Bush *is* an obstacle to peace. As a matter of fact the entire globe favors Kerry 2-to-1 over Bush. Bush has horribly damaged our international relations. Virtually all of our allies hate Bush and thus hate us. We NEED our allies help to persue and catch terrorists within those countries. If you are unaware of global opposition to Bush and global drop in oppinion of the US and drop in support for the US then you have missed a lot of international news and global surveys. You're probably getting your news from Fox News. You really should read this national survey.

He voted for something he hasn't even looked at?

They all did. It was in urgent response to the terrorist attacks. This is explicitly why the Patriot act contained a self-destruct "sunset provision". They all voted for it did it in a rush to prevent a second such attack, and with the intention to go back fix it. Had Kerry NOT voted for it at the time he'd be villified for not responding to the terrorist attack and leaving America vulnerable.

which he is trying to wiggle out of?

THE BILL'S OWN SPONSOR SAID THERE WERE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL!

Kerry saying he wants to fix the Patriot act is in no way a flip-flop or "wiggle-out". The original intent was for the bill to be fixed later and/or simply expire, wiping the entire thing out. It is Bush pulling a reversal in trying to get the Patriot act mess made permanent.

Kerry did not reverse himself on the "$87 billion he voted for before he voted against it" either. They were TWO DIFFERENT BILLS with DIFFERENT PROVISIONS. He voted for a good version and voted against a bad version. That is what legislators are SUPPOSED to do. Of course all you ever hear is the sound bite, not the actual text of the different bills.

I'm not sure what else you think he's "wiggling out of" or "reversing" on, perhaps the partial birth abortion ban? Well, again he voted against a BAD version of the bill. It had no exception for protecting the health of the mother, it would have criminalized and imprisioned a mother and/or doctor for a life-saving procedure in a medical crisis. Even the most rabid anti-abortionists generally wouldn't condone imprisioning a mother and/or doctor for attempting to save her life. Yet the Bushies attack spin is that that vote makes Kerry "pro-partial birth abortion".

The only thing Kerry needs to "wiggle out of" is sound-bite spin that missrepresents the actual facts of the situation.

-

so don't make it seem like a bunch of koolaide drinking loonies are Bushes support base

Sadly that description has more than a little truth to it, but I would be more charitable and say most of Bush's supporters have been mislead. Before you flame me or dismiss me as an idiot I beg you to read this national survey. Read it read it please read it.

The fact is that the majority of Bush supporters have factually false beliefs about Bush's position on many issues, and the majority of Bush supporters believe many flat out false "facts".

The majority of Kerry supporters have factually correct beliefs about Kerry's position on the issues, and the majority Kerry supporters get the facts correct.

Sure there are smart and well informed people who support Bush because they agree with his him. Sure there are stupid and missinformed people who support Kerry. However I defy you to actually read that survey and tell me the majority of Bush supporters are not misinformed.

While I am not thrilled with people who support Bush because they agree with him, I am absolutely HORRIFIED by the fact that he may get re-elected based on massive misinformation and intentional disinformation.

many regligious people I know support the concept of separation of church and state

Good, and hopefully they take that issue seriously and take it into consideration when voting this year. Bush is hardly a supporter of seperation of chuch and state.

-

Linky

Get that strawman detector calibrated, eh?

If people really thought that CNN failed them, they would dump them and move to another news outlet. Oh wait, whether I like it or not they already have; they moved to (yuck) Fox News.

But the problem is self perpetuating. Why would people think that CNN has failed them? They people who moved to Fox News did so because Fox News tells them stories with a spin or bias that they like, not need to hear. I listen to Mike Savage on the radio from time to time specifically because I think he's a tool. I want to make sure that his arguments still sound half-educated and nonsensical to make sure that I'm still certain about my convictions. We have way too many Americans who turn to the news for self-affirmation rather than to be intellectually challenged, and it's one of the most subtle yet critical problems I see in American society.

What i find really amazing is how many people who identify themselves as Bush supporters don't know what his positions are.

The results from the survey, broken out by question.

Just in case you don't feel like rtfa, a couple examples:

53% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the International Criminal Court. We do not participate in the ICC and Bush does not think we should.
51% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the Kyoto agreement. We do not participate in the Kyoto agreement and Bush does not think we should.

20% of Bush supporters think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and 19% of Bush supporters think that Bush is telling them that.

But hey, the Republicans aren't the only uninformed people out there: 31% of Kerry supporters (36% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the Kyoto agreement and 34% of them think that Bush supports it.
39% of Kerry supporters (45% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the ICC and 45% of them think that Bush supports it.

What we can learn from this: one-third to one-half of the people out there don't know what the fuck they're talking about regardless of party affiliation, but Bush supporters are wrong slightly more often.

Not all of the questions are available yet, but many of them are in this PDF on their site.

Umm...PIPA hardly compares to Bob Jones University. Please check out PIPA's about us page to see who they are funded by: http://www.pipa.org/about.html. Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology. It's not really fair to compare PIPA to a Christian-oriented college. More importantly, by making this claim of bias, you are attempting to discount the conclusion of the report--that many Bush supporters in the U.S. are sadly out of touch not only with what the rest of the world thinks about their leadership but also what the solid conclusions of experts have been on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Please don't load this with bias that doesn't exist.

This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:

"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml

The original source document (PDF):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Press.pdf

While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

What's also interesting is that those least likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack are most likely to vote for Bush. That is, the best predictor of being a victim of a terrorist attack is population density, and this is also the best predictor of voting for Kerry. At the moment, Kerry is leading in Washington, DC at 78-11. That's an impressive 67 point lead. (Nader, at 9%, is only 2 points behind Bush.) Similar numbers for NYC.

It's been pointed out before that states receiving comparatively less and paying more for federal benefits are more likely to be in favor of them.

I don't know, I had just been thinking about this when I came across the above post. Some explanations are simple but I think there's gotta be another variable behind this somewhere.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it. ...

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

FOX CBS ABC NBC CNN Prn N/P
20% 30% 39% 45% 45% 53% 77% None of the 3
80% 71% 61% 55% 55% 47% 23% 1 or more

Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

Christian science monitor article.

The people on the Fox News Channel are not really journalists. They are mostly advocates of the Republican Party. They usually have only wimpy liberals that you never heard of for the conservatives to beat-on. It has been shown that watchers of the Fox News Channel are the most likely group of those who get most there news from TV to hold key misconceptions about 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Here's another interesting study that found that misperceptions of the war are strongly related to the source of news people primarily watch.

Take these three ideas:

* evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda has been found
* weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
* world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq

Overall, 60% of the US public believed in one of the three of the above statements at the time of the study (all of which are false).

Here's the breakdown by the viewers' news source:

Fox News: 80%
CBS News: 71%
ABC News: 61%
NBC News: 55%
CNN: 55%
Print sources: 47%
NPR/PBS: 23%

Finally, proof that Fox News rots your brain. Also note that the swarthy liberals watching CBS were the second-most likely to have these war-justifying and completely false perceptions.

Your best bet for a single source of non-biased news is NPR and PBS. A recent study by the non-partisan PIPA found that NPR/PBS listeners/viewers had the best understanding of the situation in Iraq. By contrast, the more people watched Fox, the less they understood.

Of the mainstream news stations, Fox, and the Murdock and Scaif newspapers, are the only ones that have biases that interfere with their coverage. These stations and papers lean hard right and make a ton of money. As a result, media companies like MSNBC are starting to emulate their approach and are therefore going to lean slightly to the right. NPR and PBS, and to a lesser extent the New York Times get badmouthed by conservatives, but really don't spin their stories. There are some liberal news sources, but they tend to advertise that in their name (like, say, the Socialist Review).

Your best bet for finding out candidate information is to check out the various watch-dog sites that slashdoters have pointed out. Also, services at google and yahoo give you a pretty representative cross section of the day's news coverage.

No book on critical thinking can prepare you for the statistic that regular Fox viewers are wrong about things significantly more often than non-viewers. (The report gets interesting at page 12.) I mean, I joke about feeling less informed after watching Channel 7 news here in Perth, but I'm making a comment on the insignificant nature of the majority of stories (which sports personality is banging which other sports personality's wife, etc) -- I don't literally mean that after watching it I feel like I've been infected with lies. Spin, sure. Fear, maybe. But there's a difference between choosing your stories carefully and blatently mis-informing your viewership.

The Charleston.net article claims that half of Americans believe Iraqis were among the hijackers in some "pre-war survey" but gives no source for that claim.

The one source we can view is the PIPA survey. The full report is here. On page ten is a question about Iraq's involvement in 9/11. 20% believe Iraq was directly responsible. Which is close to the number who believe the majority of the world was in favor of the war (page 15). Based on this, it would seem a minority of Americans are as ill-informed as you suggest.

I will not claim that I'm happy about the 20% figure, it is still rather high. But I will claim that the US population is no better or worse informed than the rest of the world. I deal extensively with French corporations through my job. Every time I have French citizens in the US, they are shocked that the population is nearly evenly divided. They are surprised of any division at all. One remarked that he'd never seen any news of anti-war sentiment in the US at all.

That tells me a lot. When was the last time you heard NPR discuss the improved economic condition in Iraq?

I can't find the link right now, but there was discusion during on episode of morning edition last week.

Where is the NPR leading story on the propaganda piece Moore just put out with a list of all the factual errors Moore made?

Where are the factual errors? Name one!

That said, I listened to a half a dozen reviews from various NPR contributers last week, and several of them had a negative tone to them.

How about a study that shows that people who watch cable news (not just fox, but fox far worse than others) for their primary news source were far more likely to harbor misconseptions about facts pertaining to the war in Iraq? NPR listeners did much better...

here it is. And here is the original pdf

• Rep. pg. 7: 60% of respondents had at least one of the three listed misperceptions about the Iraq-al Quaeda link, WMD, and world opinion opposing the war
• Quest. pg. 5: 80% of poll respondents selected "From TV and radio" as "where [they] tend to get most of [their] news".
• Quest. pg. 6: 18% of poll respondents (presumably 18% of those listing TV and radio as their primary source, though it's not specified) selected Fox News as "[their] primary sources[sic] of news"
• Rep. pg. 13: 80% of those poll respondents who selected Fox News as their primary source of news also had one or more of the three "misconceptions" listed, namely that "evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links have been found, WMD have been found[,] and [that] world public opinion favored [the] Iraq war"

• Among 1,362 respondents, 817 are "misinformed", given the criterion of having at least one of the three listed "misconceptions".
• Among 1,362 respondents, 1090 selected TV and radio as their principal news source.
• Among 1,090 respondents listing TV and radio as their principal news source, 196 listed Fox News as their primary news source.
• Among 196 people listing Fox News as their primary news source, 157 had at least one of the given misperceptions.
• Among the 817 misinformed respondents, 157 use Fox News as their primary source of news.

• Rep. pg. 7: 60% of respondents had at least one of the three listed misperceptions about the Iraq-al Quaeda link, WMD, and world opinion opposing the war
• Quest. pg. 5: 80% of poll respondents selected "From TV and radio" as "where [they] tend to get most of [their] news".
• Quest. pg. 6: 18% of poll respondents (presumably 18% of those listing TV and radio as their primary source, though it's not specified) selected Fox News as "[their] primary sources[sic] of news"
• Rep. pg. 13: 80% of those poll respondents who selected Fox News as their primary source of news also had one or more of the three "misconceptions" listed, namely that "evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links have been found, WMD have been found[,] and [that] world public opinion favored [the] Iraq war"

• Among 1,362 respondents, 817 are "misinformed", given the criterion of having at least one of the three listed "misconceptions".
• Among 1,362 respondents, 1090 selected TV and radio as their principal news source.
• Among 1,090 respondents listing TV and radio as their principal news source, 196 listed Fox News as their primary news source.
• Among 196 people listing Fox News as their primary news source, 157 had at least one of the given misperceptions.
• Among the 817 misinformed respondents, 157 use Fox News as their primary source of news.

• Rep. pg. 7: 60% of respondents had at least one of the three listed misperceptions about the Iraq-al Quaeda link, WMD, and world opinion opposing the war
• Quest. pg. 5: 80% of poll respondents selected "From TV and radio" as "where [they] tend to get most of [their] news".
• Quest. pg. 6: 18% of poll respondents (presumably 18% of those listing TV and radio as their primary source, though it's not specified) selected Fox News as "[their] primary sources[sic] of news"
• Rep. pg. 13: 80% of those poll respondents who selected Fox News as their primary source of news also had one or more of the three "misconceptions" listed, namely that "evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links have been found, WMD have been found[,] and [that] world public opinion favored [the] Iraq war"

• Among 1,362 respondents, 817 are "misinformed", given the criterion of having at least one of the three listed "misconceptions".
• Among 1,362 respondents, 1090 selected TV and radio as their principal news source.
• Among 1,090 respondents listing TV and radio as their principal news source, 196 listed Fox News as their primary news source.
• Among 196 people listing Fox News as their primary news source, 157 had at least one of the given misperceptions.
• Among the 817 misinformed respondents, 157 use Fox News as their primary source of news.

Gee, let's see who funds this "PIPA" group who made the study:

PIPA's Foundation Sponsors

Ben and Jerry's Foundation

Ford Foundation

Rockefeller Foundation

Among others.

Please investigate your sources more carefully.

The study you are quoting (which speaks highly of NPR) was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes, which has many of the same funders as NPR. The director of PIPA is a well-known liberal. (Check the 'About us' link from the front page). This is obviously an attempt to create an appearance that NPR is a better news source.

Please investigate your sources more carefully.

The study you are quoting (which speaks highly of NPR) was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes, which has many of the same funders as NPR. The director of PIPA is a well-known liberal. (Check the 'About us' link from the front page). This is obviously an attempt to create an appearance that NPR is a better news source.

This is your Fox News:Fox News Sucks. Look at the percentages. Fox News is very Pro-Bush.

Checkout this study.

Quoting from the study:
Frequency of misrepresentation re. Iraq war
(Al Qaeda links, WMDs found, World reaction favourable.)
Respondants with one or more misconception:
FOX = 80%
CBS = 71%
ABC = 61 %
NBC =55%
CNN = 55%
Print media = 47%
PBS/NPR = 23%

Lots of other interesting stats. Left wing/right wing? Who cares! We are just a highly uninformed populance. And judging by the reactions here, proud of it.

Your efforts to defend your mention of the equivalence of Bush and Saddam in your mind are simply semantics. You said you dislike them equally, so you consider them morally equivalent. Easy enough.

Eh? I dislike Britney Spears more than I dislike Ghengis Khan, but that doesn't mean I consider brutal dictators to be morally superior to pop stars.

You can condemn his father with some justice, but George W Bush is doing the morally correct thing, insofar as I can determine.

Living in San Francisco, I agree that there is certainly a chunk of the American left that is irrationally biased against George Bush to a point that is ridiculous. It seems to be the same thing (if smaller in scale) as the American right's irrational hatred of Clinton. It has a lot to do with their personalities, and very little to do with their capabilities.

However, you shouldn't let that blind you to what are very reasonable critiques of the Bush administration. The war wasn't sold to the public on the basis of removing a bad dictator; it was sold on the basis of Iraq posing an imminent threat. Tony Blair got reamed for this, but the American media gave Bush pretty much a free pass on it, as demonstrated by the large proportion of Americans who still have basic facts wrong (especially, as it shows on page 13, the ones who get most of their news from Fox). Many lefty commentators feel that the Bush administration is directly responsible for this, but at the very least they have done very little to correct these misperceptions.

But even if you believe that military action against Iraq was the only option (and many who oppose Bush felt that way), there are still very reasonable gripes with the way it happened. The unilateralist rush to immediate action spent vast amounts of international political capital. Two years ago the world was saying "We are all New Yorkers now." Recent surveys show a drastic falloff in worldwide approval of America as well as loss of stature for the UN. This isn't just a long-term issue, either; the lack of support from other nations, especially Islamic ones, is making it much harder to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy.

Personally, I favored the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance with UN anti-proliferation treaties. I also favor the use of the US's power to benefit the downtrodden everywhere, especially by furthering the spread of the freedoms that we in western democracies often take for granted. But I think our Iraqi adventure was poorly executed and done for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, I guess that'd be true if you listen to the biased media. But if you read a wide spectrum of reports on what he does...more often than not he's reported as being honest and moral. And ABC, CBS, NBC, etc doesn't count...that's redundant...they all have the same bias. Once you've watched on, you know what the others will say too.

Ever consider that maybe your opinion is just plain wrong?

If one person calls you a horse, ignore it.
If two people call you a horse, look in a mirror.
If three people call you a horse, buy a saddle.

This so-called left wing media bias has never been proven. All research into it shows that mainstream journalism is actually pretty moderate, with the exception of Fox. How about a nice report by the University of Maryland showing that Fox viewers are the most likely to believe untruths about Saddams links with al-Qaeda, WMDs were found, and that the world supported the war in Iraq? PBS and NPR viewers are the least likely to believe any of these untruths.

The Texas Republican Party's Platform includes such things as (these are directly from their site):
Page 6 of the Platform:
Christian Nation - The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation,
which was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. We also affirm the right
of each individual to worship in the religion of his or her choice.
Religion - The Party acknowledges that the church is a God-ordained institution with a sphere of authority
separate from that of civil government; thus, churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including home
Bible study groups, should not be regulated, controlled, or taxed by any level of civil government, including the
Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. We reclaim freedom of religious expression in
public on government property, and freedom from governmental interference.
Page 7 of the Platform:
Faith Based Opportunities - The Party encourages the Texas Legislature to identify and develop ways to
increase the ability of faith-based institutions and community and business organizations to assist individuals
and families in need.
Page 8 of the Platform:
Homosexuality - The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the
breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual
behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our
country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include
homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges
including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals,
homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those
who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - The Party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.
Page 9 of the Platform:
This should wake the Slashdot crowd up
Pornography - The Party believes, as do the vast majority of Texans, that pornography is repulsive, addictive
and contributes to deviant criminal behavior. It exploits men, women, and children and degrades society as a
whole. We call upon our governmental bodies to enforce existing laws regarding all forms of pornography in our
music, film, telephone, computer, video, cable, Internet, and print industries. We must have more stringent
legislation to prohibit access to and generation of pornography including virtual pornography and operation of
sexuall

Misperceptions, The Media, and the Iraq War. It's a 312 K PDF.

Fox garnered a 80% misperception rate, while PBS/NPR audiences mispercieved about 23% of the time. I wonder what the equivalent rate among uruk.net readers was...

A detailed study released by the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland leaves little doubt as to the truth in this matter. But don't let yourself be confused by facts; keep drinking the kool-aid.

A detailed study released by the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland leaves little doubt as to the truth in this matter. But don't let yourself be confused by facts; keep drinking the kool-aid.

Not everyone who watches Fox News is a conservative zealot.

This is true. I know some people who watch it purely for the unintentional humor value.

And not every conservative zealot watches Fox News.

Yes, some of them read the Washington Times or Newsmax instead, or prefer their Ann Coulter books to television news.

It just drives me crazy when people are pigeonholed as being a moron based on one simple aspect of personal preference.

Unfortunately, in this case, it's absolutely true.

- A.P.

My problem with Fox News isn't that they are heavily bias to the right, but rather they present misleading information. A recent study done by pipa shows heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as those who rely on National Public Radio (NPR) or the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).