Slashdot Mirror

This issue is not immune to the scientific method. Much of the approbation for Fox, and kudos for NPR, comes from the Knowledge Networks study almost 15 years ago:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRepo...

It IS possible for everybody to agree on a few simple facts, no really. Then you can survey news consumers for whether they are right on those really simple facts, and find which consumers have the best score. In this 2003 poll, you actually had the amazing stat that people who watched a lot of Fox had lower scores than the Fox fans who watched a little - a lot of watching actually subtracted from your factual knowledge. And NPR listeners had the highest score.

This study should be repeated yearly, about multiple news stories, and the results should be common knowledge. News sources should be competing on whether their viewers get 80% of 90%, not whether they get 90% or 25%.

Worldpublicopinion.org founded by Pipa.org
http://www.pipa.org/sponsors.htm

        * Ben and Jerry's Foundation

I dunno... I can't see *stuffs mouth full of rocky road* any problem here.

# 71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
# 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
# 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
# 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

Only 34.1% could NOT correctly say Obama beats his wife!

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

"Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of....We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."

What she actaully said was ten times more stupid than Fey's "satire".

OTOH, we do have this survey from 2004 where Bush supporters misattributed a slew of Kerry's foreign policy positions to Bush and then expressed their support for them.

Ah yes, disproof by vigorous assertion. Don't know the latin for that one.

Here is the questionnaire for the results I quoted - would you be so kind as to illustrate the "repeated" "subjective" words in the questions? And of course they selectively choose the topics of global warming, defense spending, Israel and Palestine, and the role of UN, trivia with no relevance to why people choose Presidential candidates.

You really didn't say anything else substantial enough to refute, but I would like to point out that "on some sites their surveys are even compared to Push-polls" doesn't make it true.

If you check polls from 2004, you will find that Bush voters were more likely than Kerry voters to be wrong about Bush's positions, and that independent voters were often wrong but wrong less often than Bush supporters. There's no reason to assume the uniform distribution.

The problem is people who do vote but don't research.

Factcheck.org and vote-smart.com are easy to use so there's no excuse for voting based on a campaign ad. As late as 2004, half of Americans believed that Saddam had been providing substantial support to al-Qaeda. Like everyone else, we get the government we deserve.

To call NPR biased and to ignore my statements about various news stations because they don't agree with your bias is ludacris - go look up the specific study i was referencing for my statistics

  oh wait - lemme get you a link to the PDF because i know you're too lazy to factcheck yourself

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /Report10_21_04.pdf

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

The problem is that whole attitude you've just displayed of "we are righteous, fair and unblemished, and everybody should just do as we say, because we're so right", when in fact, it's all just alienation, lack of self-critique, and cultural isolation. Because, looking at the US from the outside, and looking at things like the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, I'm not so sure China is so terrible by comparison. Sure, you don't have a single party regime. You have a two party regime! :-) Wow :-) Oh, and you're brain washed by a bad educational system and by violent video-games and movies that have portrayed large groups of brown-skinned individuals as hate-mongers and evil-doers, to be terminated by Soldier Hero. That, my friend, is called Indoctrination. And you had it in China. And you have it in the US. Face it. Look at it. Admit it.

The argument that the US invented the internet is riculous, and therefore, it has "more rights over it" is ridiculous. It is like saying all doctors can't use the scalpel because some guy, from some country, invented it.

Consider that neither do the peoples of the world want a crucial technology like the internet to be in the hands of a nation that arrests journalists that don't kneel to the government, that schemes against and slanders the UN on a periodic basis, and does that as a policy, that promotes pre-emptive wars based on lies, disrespects basic human rights (including kidnapping people abroad, turning them to torture, and abusing prsioners), and that creates some ill-begotten evil thing like the Patriot Act, etc. The fact the Bush administration is worried about this issue already shows which side to choose.

The US is widely mistrusted, for all the right reasons. For instance, if you read the 2002 World Bank World Survey on Trust, conducted with 36,000 people around the world, you'll find that people trust leaders of the U.N. much more than they trust the leaders of the U.S.
Also, in 2003, Time Magazine conducted a poll with more than 700,000 responses with the question: "who poses the greatest threat to world peace?" Options were: 1) North Korea; 2) Iraq; 3) The United States. The US was the answer chosen by 86%. (See here).
In another international poll, in 2003, the BBC found that 60% of the people "had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President."
And more up to date, two new world polls from 2005 show the same phenomenom: A poll from here and here show thats the U.S. is "broadly disliked." The last poll, (see here and here), with 23 countries and 23,000 interviewed during 2004, shows that the U.S. comes out last in "positive contribution". And we're not even talking about countries that nest the majority of terrorists. Can you imagine what those feelings are in, say, the Middle East?

The US has a bad reputation, image, and track record. And North-Americans wonder "why"? How about playing along with others, respecting global decisions, promoting health and education (instead of war) and promoting democracy through peace and social change, the only everlasting change. The internet is a crucial asset to the 21st century, and like the printing machines, it's a technology that belongs to mankind. Sorry. Live with it.

I don't recall this report specifically mentioning Fox News but it does show the same difference between informed and uninformed Americans. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealiti es_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf

As the PIPA report (pdf) found, FOX makes you stupid.

As sad as it is, with everything that China has done, the world would significantly rather have China playing a global leadership role than America (their top pick, however, was France). That's how far things have degenerated...

Actually, you might want to read this report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

Although there is large support for the troops currently in the war,

Asked to prescribe US defense spending levels relative to its potential enemies, an overwhelming majority [of democrats and republicans] sets standards far below actual relative spending levels.

By the way, although there are some slight differences, it's very interesting to see in their report how little democrats and republicans differ when it comes to allocating money.

Actually, you might want to read this report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

Although there is large support for the troops currently in the war,

Asked to prescribe US defense spending levels relative to its potential enemies, an overwhelming majority [of democrats and republicans] sets standards far below actual relative spending levels.

By the way, although there are some slight differences, it's very interesting to see in their report how little democrats and republicans differ when it comes to allocating money.

ES cell research isn't really hurting too much for funding.

I think your point is, how the heck are you supposed to develop a technology to the point it can be used to cure disease if you don't fund it?

Personally, I don't know if ES cells are ever going to be much use clinically, but just the fact that they can potentially create any cell in the body is tantalizing.

What the hell...everyone is getting stupider, watching more Fox News.

Why is it that the more ignorant one gets, the more dogmatic one becomes?

We "bash" Bush because he is doing a bad job as a president. Unfortunately, a large portion of the populous is still ignorant of the facts, so he got reelected, but pointing out where the government goes wrong is still an important duty, not just during election time. This has nothing to do with "my guy lost"; this has to do with the fact that truth and liberty lost in the 2004 election.

Here's hoping they make a come back.

The really scary thing is that Daily Show viewers still only averaged 3.59 out of 6. I'm not even american and the only question I would say is a bit challenging is the one asking what level of income the Bush tax cut started at. I'd bet slashdot readers would easily average 5-6.

It should also be noted that this survey/quiz was not of News Shows, but of late night television shows. Daily Show viewers should beat Leno and Letterman. Its a news show ... well almost.

Much more interesting is the Pipa report on misperceptions of the Iraq war by viewers of different news programs: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Report08_20 _04.pdf

However, the average score for someone that is not a late night viewer is actually lower than random guessing, at 2.62. I'm gonna have to check the actual study to see why this happened. Maybe this is just a strange statistical thing or the sample size is too small, but im betting that it is another case of great misinformation from the Bush Administration. This wouldn't be the first time that such an effect was shown. I'd really like to see a break down of how people fared on each question by political party and other factors.

Besides, the current law of US is that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of stuff like nationality or race in employing folks(or even creating a church or other association). This isn't anything "voluntary"-your only choice is to leave the US.

um, tell me exactly how Iraq was related to September 11th?

Oh, right. It wasn't.

Petty that so many Bush voters thought so. Sorry that's a pdf, but questions 13, 14 and 16 explain a lot about why people supported this war and voted for Bush.

"How many Americans still think Saddam had an active WMD program? ... Al queada links? How many of you think most of the world support your actions?"

Honestly, I'd say that at LEAST a majority of Americans knows the truth about these things. Contrary to YOUR ignorant belief, most Americans are NOT un-educated or un-informed about domestic and world issues.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Here are the results of a survey taken of Americans right before the election:

As you can tell, the majority of Americans *are* ignorant and un-informed about world issues. It might be an unpleasant surprise, but there it is in cold hard statistics.

Forgive me my cynicism, but I just lost whatever faith I had in my own countrymen about a month ago. There's always Europe, I suppose...

The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans' political positions.
Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions.
However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant
number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.

The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans' political positions.
Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions.
However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant
number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.

The simple fact is that many of the comments already made were clearly made by those who haven't bothered to read the actual report or even it's summary of findings (well linked). The simplest summary is that given a wide variety of independent variables (i.e. data that might have some causal relationship with the outcome) and one independent variable (namely the shift in support from Dem to GOP in the presidential race between 2000 and 2004), the only significant movement occurred in predominantly Democratic counties with electronic touch-screen voting machines. The statistical tests reject virtually any possibility that these shifts were related to number of voters, income, Hispanic population, or voter turnout.

The question, of course. is what does this mean? Well, in isolation, not much. It is likely that some other factors not included in the independent variables were very significant. Unfortunately, when these results are combined with the discrepancies between the early exit polls and the vote counts. And contrary to a lot of analysis, past history has these exit polls much more accurate than they seem to have been this year.

Was there fraud then? We don't know. Evidence suggests that there may have been something going on (and the spread from 130K-260K has to do with uncertainty as to what kind of error might have taken place since misassigned votes are worth twice the difference of phantom votes). And the reality is that the rush to unauditable e-voting has made it more difficult to determine what kind of errors may have taken place.

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 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. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions. (...)

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

This Google search turns up thousands of references. FOX news went to court arguing they had a right to lie to the public.

A reporter was outraged over being ordered to mislead the public. He refused to knowingly mislead the public as ordered and publicly blew the whistle on those orders. He got fired. The case ended up turning on the "whistle blower" statues, with the judge ruling that those statutes did not cover reporters. Case dismissed, FOX wins. FOX apparently retains the right to order its reporters to intentionally misslead the public and to fire reporters that do not comply.

In addition FOX viewers get the facts wrong more often than people who get their news from any other source.

And even more inflamatory, the majority of Bush supporters get the facts wrong while the majority of Kerry supporters get the facts right. Direct link to PDF report.

-

70% of the people, my fellow slashdotters, are ... poorly educated, non-rational... folks, they're stupid, and they hold out fates in their hands. I know, that's anti-democratic. But when a race is based on the will of the people, by pure numbers, candidates have to worry about how people perceive them on an emotional level, not on how they stand on issues.

Though I'd generally agree that people are stupid... I think you just explained Bush's campaign technique. He won because he ignored issues, appealed to people on an emotional level, and told the stupid masses what would make them feel better.

The electoral college does not protect us from that sort of politics.

I don't know a reasonable, fair way to keep clueless knee-jerk voters out of the system. If this image has any truth to it, a simple IQ test (require an IQ of 100 or greater) would have produced a landslide victory for Kerry. But that's not fair, and not democratic. So, we'll just have to deal with all those uninformed people who haven't been paying attention to the world; the ones who made the PIPA report so interesting. Bleh.

For now, the only reasonable things I think would help are: switch to Condorcet voting, get rid of the electoral college, and add a "nobody" entry in every election.

We don't have an educated, informed population. Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots.

Take a look at: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

1st two paragraphs says it all:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 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. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

Oh, and yet another simple example of how much of a dumbass bush is, take a look at this url:

A nice quote can be found towards the end of the page:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

We can't accept the fact that Kerry lost... by 3.5 million votes.

You're right, it's been really hard to get over the fact that the worst president ever was backed by that many people. I've been incredulous all week.

However, Bush didn't win by 3.5 million votes. He lost by about 130,000 votes. If 131,000 more people voted for Kerry in Ohio - he would be our new president-elect. It is for this reason that we should be examining the voting mechanics errors, the number of which are approaching that winning margin. We learned this rather clearly 4 years ago, I'm surprised that you haven't... let me guess, you probably also believe that WMDs were found in Iraq and Saddam was behind 9/11?

Taco isn't saying that crackers were messing with the system. The story that I read from his headline was that the system is messed up enough as it is, and we aren't getting fair or accurate vote counts. We can't have a truly functioning democracy when so many people's votes aren't counted properly. I mean, how are we supposed to tell Afganistan and Iraq that we know how to run a country better than they do?

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

The majority of Bush supporters do not get their facts wrong either.

How can you say that when you didn't bother to read the link and you have absolutely no idea which facts I am refering to?

You assumed I was making an attack and you just responded with insults.

I'm not calling you stupid. I am presuming you are intelligent and reasonable enough to stop and read something and rationally argue facts. If you think I'm wrong, fine, actually read this and tell me how and why I'm wrong. Don't just insult me, read the link, prove me wrong. If you think that link gets any of the facts wrong I will gladly point you to our own Senate Intelligence report or other source confirming them.

You honestly belive the media was easy on Bush?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Absolutely everthing you cite is extremely recent, and thus irrelevant to my point.

After the 9/11 attacks it was absolutely intolerable to criticize the US or the president. Even a COMEDY show - That's My Bush - was yanked from the air. You cannot seriously dispute that the media was incapable of any sort of legitimate critical reporting relating to the US or the president at that time. Even the supposedly liberal media was incapable of carring a stupid comedy show.

There was an incredible outpouring of unity and patriotism and support and rallying behind our leader. Coming together in common defense against an attacker. And without critisism.

And we went out and waged an absolutely justified war in Afghanistan. And we did not need to ask the UN's premission, we did not need to ask anyone's permission. The president showed *US* the evidence that Afghanistan was complicit in the 9/11 attack. And we rallied behind our troops and we rallied behind our leader. Our leader was defending us against attack.

We all trusted him, and we all rallied together in common defense. And without critism.

And he said Iraq was a threat against us. He said Iraq had WMD's. He said Iraq had a nuke program. And he said he was going to defend us against attack.

And he was our beloved leader defending us against attack, and we trusted him. And the media was EXTREMELY reluctant to say anything critical of America or anything critical of our leader. To do so was not only unpatriotic, but it interfered with his efforts to defend us, to criticize him was to make us vulnerable to attack. To criticize him was to attack us.

And Bush told us about Iraq obtaining aluminium tubes. And he told us those aluminium tubes were for enriching uranium. However our own experts - and experts around the world - all said that the administration was wrong. That the aluminum tubes were the exact same tubes Iraq used for ordinary rockets. And the experts all said that the aluminum tubes were completely unsuitable for enriching uranium. The world knew that the aluminum tubes story simply did not make any sense. But the US news was reluctant to carry any story saying the claims were wrong - saying Bush was wrong. And we believed there was evidence Iraq had a program to enrich uranium

And Bush told us about Iraq seeking to obtain uranium, and told us of the african yellowcake documents showing that Iraq was trying to get uranium. Except those documents were immediately exposed as forgeries. And it was revealed that Bush was advised that the evidence was bogus. And he knowingly presented bogus anyway. And the US news was reluctant to carry any story critical of the US or of the president. And we believed there was evidence that Iraq tried to obtain uranium.

And we engaged in a war against Iraq. And we rallied behind our troops fighting that war. And we rallied behind our president for protecting us. And there was almost no critisism. What valid and critical reporting there was was extremely softpeddled. Easily overlooked, and quickly forgotten.

Except the president LIED to us. There was no credibl

LOL! Whoohahahaha. Do you SERIOUSLY think that your typical Norwegian citizen (of whom only 74% hoped we'd change to Kerry and a whopping 7% like Bush) has made the convoluted logic you suggest? That they are afraid there'll be a US-friendly democracy in the mideast?

And I really can't wait to hear your rationalization on CANADA. Hehehe. Yes, why does CANADA want to tear us down? Why is CANADA afraid of a US-friendly democracy in the mideast? Canadians almost 4-to-1 wanted Bush out. Canadians in absolute disbeleif that we were so dumb as to re-elect Bush.

And how the hell do you explain an England newspaper - our stanchest ally - running the front-page story How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?

The world is BAFFLED that the US citizens voted for Bush. The reason is that international media has been running accurate and unbiased news. The problem is that in the US, ever since 9/11, our news has been relectuant to run anything unflattering of the US or of the administration. Remember - after 9/11 there was an INCREDIBLE outporing of unity and support and patriotism. It was simply unthinkable to run a critical story. That effect has certainly diminished, but it was renewed when we were in the Afghanistan war to root-out Al Qaeda. We rallied around our Troops and our leader in a just cause for our defense and safety.

And then we moved on to Iraq. The administration abused that loyalty and patriotism to propagandize against Iraq. And the media was uncritical of the administration and its claims and its 'evidence'. And our news did not cover unflatering stories that were running overseas. Stories that the administrations claims did not hold up. Stories that the administration KNOWINGLY presented forged evidence to the UN as justification for the invasion.

The Bush administraion has voilated our trust and abused patriotic emotions and unity and support. The administration smothered us in propaganda, and won over support from half the country.

Oh, and you completely ignored everything else in my last post. You did not dispute that The majority of Bush supporters get the facts wrong. You did not dispute that this global loss of support has crippled our anti-terrorism efforts.

-

You cannot cite the 9/11 report as rebuttal

Fine, toss out the 9/11 report. You're kinda forgetting I listed the inspection reports and the US Senate Intelligence report. The Senate Intelligence report documents numerous things on which the Bush administration has been deceiving the public.

There are many many people ... plenty enough reason to go in

That is a perfectly reasonable position.

It does not excuse Bush and his administration engaging in a campaign to misslead the US public. It does not excuse them knowingly presenting fraudulent evidence to the world.

And it does not change the fact that Bush most certainly won the election based on the majority of Bush voters who had been missled.

As far as I am concerned (and about, oh, 60 million other people)

58% of Bush's supporters said they would not have supported his decision to go into Iraq if they knew there were no WMD's and no WMD programs.

I will certainly agree some unknown fraction of those people might have been won over to your position had the administration tried to justify the war on that basis. They may have been able to get international support on that basis. They didn't. They lied to us, they lied to the world.

Now the entire world hates Bush and hates our country for it. Now half of the country hates Bush for lying while and the other half doesn't realize Bush lied. And now both halves of the country think the other half is insane.

Bush has lied, has ripped our country in half, and has wrecked our relations with virtually every country on earch from Canada to Norway and on and on, and has crippled our anti-terrorism efforts.

-

So you say that it's a "fact" that Bush has been "lying". You don't offer any specific examples (you can't)

As I said, I simply got tired of going over it again and again and again in various posts. It is quite tedious trying to inform people with such an emotional investment in resisting the idea that they have been missled.

The fact is that the majority of Bush supporters have been missled about the facts. (Which only scratches the surface of systematic disinformation.) Of course you are likely to take that paper as a personal attack. You will likely attack it as partisan motivated, and likely attack it on the points where you have been missled about the truth. I will cover the quality of the source, I will cover the fact that even if it were bias-motivated it does not change the fact that most Bush supporters WERE ill-informed, and I will refer you to US Senate Intelligence reports backing up the facts on which you were misinformed.

The fact is that the world says we have lied. You will dismiss it based on oil-for-food curruption. I will document how our relations have been wrecked with DOZENS of countries across the world, from Canada to England to Norway. Oil-for-food curruption was limited to companies in THREE countries, and it hadly explains the rest of the planet turning aganst Bush and against us. You will say something in the general area of us not needing world approval. I will agree we had every right to go into Afghanistan without asking anyone's permission, but that the administration not only lied to the world, but also lied to *US* to justify the attack on Iraq, point out the fogred yelowcake uranium documents and that our intelligence told Bush the documents were not credible and he KNOWINGLY presented bogus evidence anyway, I will cite the aluminum tubes which experts knew were unsuitable for uranium enrichment and that Bush's administration either knew it or was unbeleivably incompetent on, that that attack had no connection to Al Qaeda, and I will detail how that attack destroyed our international support and ruined our capability to to hunt down Al Qaeda globally, and I will point out that our losing Canada's support and Mexico's support kinda cripples our effort to keep terrorists from getting into the country.

Sigh.

Ok, so what specifically do you want to cover?

-

What you said seems right. Here is support for number 1: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions

How to understand the presidential election results.

If you haven't read any books about U.S. politics, then you probably don't know much about the activities of the U.S. government.

You cannot rely for information on TV or newspapers, or any advertising-supported media. Advertising-supported media exists to make money, not to inform. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another.

It's a fact that Bush supporters often have a poor understanding of his actions rather than what he wants people to believe. One example of support for this is the following article: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions.

The U.S. government is corrupted by extreme conflict of interest. Please don't moderate this down just because you disagree. I can support my position with links to 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

For a quicker overview, see this article: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.

The county-by-county results showing not only who won, but the number, are extremely interesting. So is the USA Today result map. They show what might be expected. Those who live in rural counties vote for Bush. In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.

Those who don't read are fooled by Karl Rove's lies. Here are books about Karl Rove's methods:

Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

Part of the secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Lies that are extreme and unrelenting enough are accepted.

President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of Mr. Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. Mr. Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.

Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

One of the Amazon reviews quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy

Fixed:

The patent in question: #6,460,020

--
Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions

Moderation:
50% Insightful
30% Troll
20% Offtopic

One thing I've learned about U.S. voters. Many of them have very little idea of the activities of their government. Research shows that's true: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions.

There is a class of voters, and a class of Slashdot members, who know little but are sure they are right. My comment above is definitely not a Troll or Offtopic. There should be a Disagree moderation.

Misinformation: Again, I don't believe that all Bush supporters were misinformed or ignorant.

That was not claimed. However, studies have shown that a large percentage of Bush's supporters were misinformed about important issues. That's where the "embarrassingly ignorant" comment came from. The numbers show that many people who voted for Bush simply haven't been paying attention.

As far the crappy economy, ... have difficulty believing that it is Bush's fault.

I doubt it's entirely his fault, but he still has the second-worst record in the past hundred years, one rank below his father. That means the two Bush presidents presided over the two worst economies since the Great Depression. That indicates to me that maybe the Bush way of doing things is not in the country's best interests, and that almost anyone would do a better job.

BTW, it may be worth mentioning that, before Dubya got elected, he spent most of the previous 20 years running companies into the ground. So, killing the economy wasn't really a big surprise; it's what he's always done when given money and power.

The only thing I blame on him in that regard is making exagerated growth claims at the beginning of his last term and for not doing enough ass-kicking to get people into gear (either thinking of ways to increase employment, etc). I'm thinking if he put his inner circle on it and told them that the one that came up with the best solution wouldn't be fired, their'd be some solutions forthcoming.

So, if I understand... you blame him for misleading people (and/or simply lacking the skill of foresight, an important skill for world leaders), and for not trying hard enough to do his job? If that's the case, I think we're in agreement here. I think he should have done everything in his power to fix the economy, instead of making a new record for vacation time spent while in office.

So, what were your other reasons for supporting Bush? If you think they'll stand up to scrutiny, I'd like to hear them.

You think that just because people don't agree with you, that they're somehow "brainwashed" or "stupid."

No. He, and I, think the majority of Bush supporters have been deceived by the administration because there is documented factual evidence.

If you think there is anything factually wrong in anything I say, or in the paper linked below, fine, name it and I'll dig up doumentation to back it up. Take me up on it - proove me wrong on the facts. No insults, wouldn't proof be more satisfying? Or defying me back something up? If I fail that's the win for you. It should be easy to beat down this lying missinformed "liberal" on the evidence.

You can read the results of a nationwide survey here.

When that nationwide survey is broken down by candidate prefference the results or quite striking. The majority of Bush supporters get many FACTS wrong, and the majority of Kerry Supporters get those FACTS correct. The facts, as documented by the UN Iraq inspection reports, as documented by our own Senate intelligence comittee and 9/11 commission report.

It is stunning how many Bush supprters believe that we had found WMD's, or that Iraq was behind 9/11, or that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda. And on and on. All documented untrue by our Senate report.

If you thought any of those things were true I really don't really blame you. Bush supporters AND Kerry supporters overwhelmingly agree that the administraion was putting out the message that these things were true. Missleading us. Part of the blame goes to the administration - and thus on Bush - for intentionally promoting FALSE beliefs. However I put most of the blame on the US news for uncritically echoing these impressions they KNEW were false, and for failing in their job to accurately inform the public.

Iraq did indeed have WMD's at one point, and Saddam almost certainly wanted to eventually make chemchal weapnos again, however there was in fact no credible reason to believe he still possesed any WMD's to justify an invasion. Nor credible evidence of an actual WMD program to justify an invasion. In fact the Senate report concluded that Saddam had indeed ordered ALL WMD's destroyed and all WMD programs shutdown because he wanted the sanctions to end. That, and he didn't want to get attacked if any were found. Saddam was a pain in the ass, but he COMPLIED.

Again, there was no credible evidence for WMD's or any WMD program! When Bush presented the South African Yellowcake uranium documents, US intelligence had ALREADY informed him that the documents were bogus and not to present them! He presented the bogus douments to the UN anyway, to justify an invasion. The US was exposed as lying when the documents were almost immediately publicly revealed as forgeries. The world caught us lying. You likely didn't get that part of the story because the US news was reluctant to cover the unflattering story.

The administration also cited aluminum tubes as evidence. Experts immediately reported that the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium enrichment. The administration - and thus Bush - was either already aware that the tubes were unsuitable for uranium enrichment, or criminally incompetent. Again, the US was exposed to the world for presenting bogus evidence, and again the US news was reluctant to carry the unflattering story.

The administration knew there was no real link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, mush less a 9/11 link. They KNEW that Saddam and Al Qaeda hated eachother. To this day Bush and the administration like to toss refferences to both into the same sentence, intentionally creating an impression that a link exists.

The majority of Bush supporters beleive that we either have global support, or at least neutral world oppinion. The fact is that virtually the entire globe hates Bush and does not support the US anti-terrorism efforts. The majority of Kerry supporters have a rather accurate appreciation of w

Minor correction:
You really shouldn't characterize it as Republicans being missinformed and Democrats getting the facts right. It's Bush supporters they are missinformed and Kerry supporters that get most of the facts right.

And if anyone wants to know WHY we are spreading these "nasty biased lies" then I suggest you read this. If you think any of the questions are "oppinions" or have the truth backwards then you need to check the US Senate Intelligence reports which document the "right" answers. Sorry, no link handy on that.

-

Yet another Bush vote based a lack of information or on false information deliberately spread by the administration. The majority of Bush supporters get the facts wrong. They have been deceived by the administration.

In fact the populations of the UK, Canada, and Mexico have had some of the most severe shift of oppinion AGINST the US. How the hell are we supposed to hunt down and catch or kill terrists now that Bush has alienated the entire world and lost virtally all international support? General public support and police support and intelligence agency support and military support.

How the hell are we supposted to keep out terrorists when even Canada and Mexico have turned against us?

BUSH IS BAD ON FIGHTING TERRORISTS because he has RUINED our international capacity to get at them and shut them down.

Note that most people in the world don't know much about Kerry, they simply want Bush gone because he's a lying jackass, and because under Bush it's US acting like a rogue nation:
Argentina 43% Kerry 6% Bush
Bolivia 25% Kerry 16% Bush
Brazil 57% Kerry 14% Bush
Canada 61% Kerry 16% Bush
China 52% Kerry 12% Bush
Colombia 47% Kerry 26% Bush
Czech Republic 42% Kerry 18% Bush
Dominican Republic 51% Kerry 38% Bush
England 47% Kerry 16% Bush
France 64% Kerry 5% Bush
Germany 74% Kerry 10% Bush
Ghana 48% Kerry 24% Bush
Indonesia 57% Kerry 34% Bush
Italy 58% Kerry 14% Bush
Japan 43% Kerry 23% Bush
Kahzakhastan 40% Kerry Bush 12%
Kenya 58% Kerry 25% Bush
Mexico 38% Kerry 18% Bush
Netherlands 63% Kerry 6% Bush
Norway 74% Kerry 7% Bush
Peru 37% Kerry 26% Bush
Russia Kerry 20% Bush 10%
South Africa 43% Kerry 29% Bush
Spain 45% Kerry 7% Bush
Sweden 58% Kerry 10% Bush
Tanzania 44% Kerry 30% Bush
Turkey 40% Kerry 25% Bush
Uraguay 37% Kerry 5% Bush
Venezuela 48% Kerry 22% Bush
Zimbabwe 28% Kerry 6% Bush

The administration is trying to use the "Oil for Food" to cover up world how WORLD oppinion has turned against us. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with oil for food. The fact is that the administraion lied in justifying the invasion of Iraq. The President KNEW the forged "yellowcake" uranium documents were bogus when he presented them. Our own intelligence KNEW the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium enrichment. We KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda hate each other.

The problem is that ever since the 9/11 attacks and our time of "unity and support", the Amercian media has been unable to effectively criticize the administration, to expose the lies deceptions and coverups. Immediately after 9/11 it was unthinkable to publish anythign that reflected badly on the US or the administration or the president. It was "unpatriotic" and "unamerican" and "divisive". That effect has certainly diminished since 9/11, but it is not gone. In fact that effect was reinvigorated when our troops were fighting in Afghanistan, and when our troops were fighting in Iraq.

The Whitehouse has been deceiving the American public, and the US media has been failing in their job to adaquately inform the public about the facts.

The international media has accurately covered the lies and deceptions of the administration, and accurately covered our appalling behaviour under Bush.

-

Because it's all but proven. Although I'd use the spectrum of "ignorant" to "informed", not "stupid" to "intelligent". Have you seen this study, in which it's shown that Kerry supporters are much more informed on foreign policy issues?

When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.

We didn't lose big, and we haven't been losing consistently. But there is something wrong. In my opinion, it's that we've been consistently unable to get the media to hold conservatives to any standard of truth. From the whole outrageous, completely false Swift Boat Veterans argument that nonetheless converted a lot of people to single misleading statements like "most liberal senator" (according to the National Review when comparing votes in 2003, during which Kerry was absent much of the time), bizarre conservative statements continue to get airtime and are often unchallenged. Democrats will continue to get mediocre support until that's changed.

Let me just post this once again:

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda

I'm not sure it is stupidity, but rather ignorance which is the problem here.

According to this, , 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (and 20% believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, though another study puts that at 56%). 72% of Bush supporters believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them, 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines. The list goes on. None of these beliefs are correct, but when you can successfully trick people into believing these things, you can probably trick them into voting for Bush too.

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

"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 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."

Americans may not be dumb, but a large percentage of them are surely living under a rock! And that's certainly not the fault of "liberal" Democrats.

while i will concede that more people want bush to be president than kerry, i will not concede that bush would be a better leader. i also believe that many of the people who want bush to be president are not seeing the truth ( The separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters) and many more are single issue voters who voted for him because of his stance on (for example) gay rights and could care less if the rest of his policies bring the courty to its knees over the next four years.

And, for the record, I'm happy to see so many religious Americans support Bush's family values: lies, greed, and discrimination. After all, who has time to help the poor, heal the sick, or protect God's creation? We have corporations and millionaires to look after! These are the values I hope to instill in my children someday.

What are you smoking?

What Bush supporters believe is absolutely incredible.

Apparently, this election was decided by people who are misinformed regarding reality.

Honestly, what makes you believe that you know so much more then everyone else?

Valid statistical research.

Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

Steven Kull comments, It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program.

Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

Have a read of this poll:

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda

Either they're stupid, or have just been basking in the gleam of Fox News for too long. Oh wait... that amounts to the same thing.

Please see PIPA's "Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" report.