Public Distrust Media's Iraq Coverage
Poll: Public Distrust Media's Iraq Coverage
Nearly half of Americans think the situation in Iraq is better than the national media are reporting, according to a recent poll, while significant majorities think the news media are damaging troop morale and prospects for victory.
The Sacred Heart University poll surveyed 800 Americans nationwide about media coverage of the Iraq war and about media trustworthiness in general. In most categories, the news media faired poorly among respondents.
The poll was released Jan. 8. It found that 49.1 percent agreed that "things are likely going better for the U.S. (in Iraq) than the U.S. media portrays."
After the poll was released this week, scores of military personnel have sent e-mails thanking the university, said Jerry Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart Polling Institute.
"The facts are things are not great in Iraq, but there are good things happening," Lindsley told Cybercast News Service. "The news media presents the facts, but they don't present all the facts, such as the lower death toll, the hospitals being built, the soccer clubs and the women in the streets."
Lindsley said news consumers are finding much of this information in alternative media that reflect the positive trends in Iraq and are left wondering why the mainstream media - namely the network news, ABC, CBS and NBC - seem to be ignoring important stories.
Cybercast News Service has reported on the declining casualty rate in Iraq for the last several months.
Almost 60 percent of respondents said that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq, because it encourage terrorists, while slightly more than 70 percent think negative coverage damages troop morale.
Other polls have shown contrary results, said Kelly McBride, an ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a national journalism education organization. Having seen other polls that represent a public frustrated with Iraq and desiring a media that would play a larger watchdog role of the war, she questioned the poll.
"The point of covering a war is to inform the democracy that is paying for the war," rather than to boost morale, McBride told Cybercast News Service.
According to the Connecticut-based university, the poll was conducted between Nov. 26 through Dec. 5, 2007. The sample was "generated proportional to population contribution in all 50 states" and has a 3.5 percent margin of error.
The poll says military officials have a slight edge over the U.S. news media - 30.8 percent to 28.3 percent - when respondents were asked who they considered would provide the most trustworthy and balanced information about the war. Foreign news media came in third with 20.8 percent, and non-military government officials had the lowest trustworthiness with 4.8 percent.
The poll also touches on the familiar question of media bias, with 86 percent believing U.S. media organizations try to influence public opinion, while 45.4 percent think journalists and broadcasters have a liberal bias. Less than a third of the respondents said they believed that the media provided balanced coverage.
"Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it, and they don't like it," Lindsley said. "Americans know that it's just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home."
However, even some media critics question the poll.
"It's not so clear what they mean by media, with so many forms of media now, and I think you would find 100 percent of the people distrust some of the media some of the time," Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative Accuracy in Media Report, told Cybercast News Service.
The poll showed that for television news, respondents found Fox News Channel the most trustworthy, followed by CNN and NBC.
But considering the 24-hour cable news stations get a maximum of 2 million viewers, Kincaid wondered how relevant those numbers were (discounting NBC).
"People are getting their information in a variety of different sources and are coming to their own conclusions," Kincaid said.
Bias is really the result of the larger problem of a lack of resources in newsrooms that leads to less screening for bias and thus a less stringent commitment to accuracy as well, said McBride of Poynter. She said a story is entirely, factually accurate, but failure to tell the complete story could be considered bias.
Further, she thought the questions were weighted toward Fox News Channel by using the phrase "fair and balanced," the network's marketing logo, in the question. She also thinks Fox News, which respondents in the poll believed leaned to the right, approaches news coverage with a larger political agenda than most other news organizations.
"The poll implies the old theory that journalists are biased liberally and that there is a gap between professional journalists and mainstream Americans," McBride said. "Bias seeps into news reports not so much out of an ideological conspiracy as much as other factors. If a newsroom is too thin, and there is no one to screen for bias, of course bias will go through."
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well DUH!! This is why most of us that blog about the war in Iraq do it because we NEVER get the good news coming from Iraq and I even have to include Fox News in this. Fox let's us in on more good news than the other Media networks, but it seems they even concentrate more on a bomb blowing up somewhere instead of a Hospital being built, or Iraqi kids going to school, or how the Iraqi's have sided with the Troops to help hunt down Al-Qaeda, and other insurgents. If this would have been WW2 there would be shouts of Treason against most of the media in the streets! Then again in WW2 people pulled together to defeat the enemy instead of protesting in the streets and yelling that President Roosevelt should be hung and wishing ill will on him. Or burning effigy's of our Soldier's in the streets. Can you picture that? I cant. I cant picture any of this nonsense going on in WW2. Anyway I will still give the Troops a SHOUT OUT, and TROOPS YOU ARE OUTSTANDING AND DOING A TERRIFIC JOB, AND THANK YOU!! :-)
Nearly half of Americans think the situation in Iraq is better than the national media are reporting, according to a recent poll, while significant majorities think the news media are damaging troop morale and prospects for victory.
The Sacred Heart University poll surveyed 800 Americans nationwide about media coverage of the Iraq war and about media trustworthiness in general. In most categories, the news media faired poorly among respondents.
The poll was released Jan. 8. It found that 49.1 percent agreed that "things are likely going better for the U.S. (in Iraq) than the U.S. media portrays."
After the poll was released this week, scores of military personnel have sent e-mails thanking the university, said Jerry Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart Polling Institute.
"The facts are things are not great in Iraq, but there are good things happening," Lindsley told Cybercast News Service. "The news media presents the facts, but they don't present all the facts, such as the lower death toll, the hospitals being built, the soccer clubs and the women in the streets."
Lindsley said news consumers are finding much of this information in alternative media that reflect the positive trends in Iraq and are left wondering why the mainstream media - namely the network news, ABC, CBS and NBC - seem to be ignoring important stories.
Cybercast News Service has reported on the declining casualty rate in Iraq for the last several months.
Almost 60 percent of respondents said that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq, because it encourage terrorists, while slightly more than 70 percent think negative coverage damages troop morale.
Other polls have shown contrary results, said Kelly McBride, an ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a national journalism education organization. Having seen other polls that represent a public frustrated with Iraq and desiring a media that would play a larger watchdog role of the war, she questioned the poll.
"The point of covering a war is to inform the democracy that is paying for the war," rather than to boost morale, McBride told Cybercast News Service.
According to the Connecticut-based university, the poll was conducted between Nov. 26 through Dec. 5, 2007. The sample was "generated proportional to population contribution in all 50 states" and has a 3.5 percent margin of error.
The poll says military officials have a slight edge over the U.S. news media - 30.8 percent to 28.3 percent - when respondents were asked who they considered would provide the most trustworthy and balanced information about the war. Foreign news media came in third with 20.8 percent, and non-military government officials had the lowest trustworthiness with 4.8 percent.
The poll also touches on the familiar question of media bias, with 86 percent believing U.S. media organizations try to influence public opinion, while 45.4 percent think journalists and broadcasters have a liberal bias. Less than a third of the respondents said they believed that the media provided balanced coverage.
"Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it, and they don't like it," Lindsley said. "Americans know that it's just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home."
However, even some media critics question the poll.
"It's not so clear what they mean by media, with so many forms of media now, and I think you would find 100 percent of the people distrust some of the media some of the time," Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative Accuracy in Media Report, told Cybercast News Service.
The poll showed that for television news, respondents found Fox News Channel the most trustworthy, followed by CNN and NBC.
But considering the 24-hour cable news stations get a maximum of 2 million viewers, Kincaid wondered how relevant those numbers were (discounting NBC).
"People are getting their information in a variety of different sources and are coming to their own conclusions," Kincaid said.
Bias is really the result of the larger problem of a lack of resources in newsrooms that leads to less screening for bias and thus a less stringent commitment to accuracy as well, said McBride of Poynter. She said a story is entirely, factually accurate, but failure to tell the complete story could be considered bias.
Further, she thought the questions were weighted toward Fox News Channel by using the phrase "fair and balanced," the network's marketing logo, in the question. She also thinks Fox News, which respondents in the poll believed leaned to the right, approaches news coverage with a larger political agenda than most other news organizations.
"The poll implies the old theory that journalists are biased liberally and that there is a gap between professional journalists and mainstream Americans," McBride said. "Bias seeps into news reports not so much out of an ideological conspiracy as much as other factors. If a newsroom is too thin, and there is no one to screen for bias, of course bias will go through."
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well DUH!! This is why most of us that blog about the war in Iraq do it because we NEVER get the good news coming from Iraq and I even have to include Fox News in this. Fox let's us in on more good news than the other Media networks, but it seems they even concentrate more on a bomb blowing up somewhere instead of a Hospital being built, or Iraqi kids going to school, or how the Iraqi's have sided with the Troops to help hunt down Al-Qaeda, and other insurgents. If this would have been WW2 there would be shouts of Treason against most of the media in the streets! Then again in WW2 people pulled together to defeat the enemy instead of protesting in the streets and yelling that President Roosevelt should be hung and wishing ill will on him. Or burning effigy's of our Soldier's in the streets. Can you picture that? I cant. I cant picture any of this nonsense going on in WW2. Anyway I will still give the Troops a SHOUT OUT, and TROOPS YOU ARE OUTSTANDING AND DOING A TERRIFIC JOB, AND THANK YOU!! :-)
15 Comments:
Hey Marie, can you name anything that the public does trust the media about!!!! LOL
BTW, just so you know I am not abandoning Fred and still support him 100%. What I am refereing to about the VP spot, is what I am hearing at some very , "in the know, " GOP circles.
When I had a chance to talk to Lindsay Graham at the debate and asked him about his being VP with McCain, ( a place he has been pushing for from the beginning),
he avoided my question which he has never done when asked about the VP spot.
I still would like to see Fred broker at theconvention, but he will have to really get massive support from already committed delegates first for it to work.
Also in the remaining primaries he is very weak in every place but a frew Southern States. That is why a win or second was very important in SC to help him get the momentum he needed to run hard for Super Tuesday.
I have not given up nor abandoned the BEST man in the field and the only real conservative, but the prospect now is not looking very good, except for the VP which will force a conservative platform and a conservative ticket to run against Hillary.
Oh sorry about getting off subject of the post, but I just wanted you to know that Fred is still my candidate!
Ken,
Hey Marie, can you name anything that the public does trust the media about!!!! LOL
Nope
Oh I never thought you were dumping Fred, I was just trying to be somewhat optomisic!
If he doesnt do well Feb. 5 I look for him to drop out then probably myself.
But who knows what he is cooking up at the moment?
I'm just saying if he has enough confidence to go forward with this thing I think I at least owe him my support because I feel somewhat responsible that we dragged the man up, and stuffed him out there to run for President lol, poor guy
JustADog,
I think you are right.
From what I heard a little while ago Thompson may throw in the towel tommorrow, which will really hurt if he does, to me anyway. But I will pick myself up, dust myself off, and move on, hard as it will be.
He is NOT a "Pretend Conservative" and alot of people missed thier opportunity to have a Real Republican in this race.
A Republican/Conservative since the beginning of his career in politics.
Ok say he does throw his support to McCain.
I am going to vote for who backs the Troops the most because that's what's most important to me, the War On Terror, and Winning it!
I dont like McCain's issues at home, but we have voiced (Loudly) our opinion on several issues that President Bush had no choice but to listen to us on, and we sure as hell can do it again.
But see here you go attacking the War On Terror, the War in Iraq being just one front of it, and our Troops are not dieing for "Islam". Our Troops that have died, died for FREEDOM, they died for DEMOCRACY!
Dont deminish Our Troops efforts in the war on terror to me.
The problem with people who think like you is we have to take away any playground the terrorist's think they are going to set up to attack America again, and you people just dont see the big picture.
Those two Soldiers in that picture are an American and an Iraqi!
Surprising isnt it?
Gee they make a fine ally in the War On Terror dont they?
Dieing for Islam is such an idiotic remark.
Dont deminish the Troops to me or thier mission, they are winning and they will come home with the honor and respect they deserve!
JustADog,
Oh I just looked at your website and of course you are a Ron Paul supporter.
It friggen figures!!
How I attrack you people I dont know.
I just heard some of the results from this poll while driving home from my church. The thing that cracked me up was that 3 percent of the people believe that ABC news and PBS are accurate and without bias. I got a chuckle about that one. We pay for PBS and nobody believes them, imagine that.
I still think most political polls are media driven. They first go out and post a phony poll and wait a few days and come back and do an actual poll and the mindnumbs that heard the original phony poll go along with it to mirror the results. That's how McCain has done so well. He has the media behind him, that is until the general election and then you will see them turn on him.
Marie,
I agree with your assessment. It is an obvious sign that the public doesn't trust the media when Fox news ends up being number one. They had a monopoly and the public grew sick of it until Fox came along and gave both sides.
I do hope fox stays balanced. However, Ann Coulter said once that 80% of their employees support the liberal politicians but hey 80% is better than 100% that the main stream media supports!
Jenn,
I also heard the media earlier and I probably cant deny since Thompson is skipping the Florida debate that he is going to throw in the towel, if not tomorrow, soon.
So I will back whomever supports the Troops the most.
And yes that may be McCain. He sucks totally at home, but we raised our voices before, we can do it again and make damn good and sure that McCain works for us and not the Liberal party.
I will just be lost and looking for whomever can replace what I saw in Thompson.
I can tell you this, the Republicans blew thier chance at having a real Republican in the race.
Not some friggen idiot like Ron Paul. Jesus Christ NO!
Well like I said I will be lost and will have to think hard and alot which I hate to do lol!
Rivka,
Well Rivka, Fox is deffinately more fair and balanced than the others on candidates and the War On Terror, but they still just dont show the good news from Iraq like I would like to see anyway.
I'm all about the Troops first and foremost, and I want someone to show a balanced report on Iraq, not just bombs going off somewhere.
We are winning and I want that to be brought out first an foremost.
And I will have to support the candidate should Fred throw in the towel, that supports the Troops.
I dont know what I'm doing at this point.
JustADog,
Oh I just looked at your website and of course you are a Ron Paul supporter.
It friggen figures!!
How I attrack you people I dont know.
Must be your winning smile! I sniffed JustaDog out as a Paulistinian right off the bat.
Almost 60 percent of respondents said that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq, because it encourage terrorists, while slightly more than 70 percent think negative coverage damages troop morale.
I'd add to that, the negative media also influences war support, back here at home. Walter Cronkite and the images from Vietnam helped shape war-perception. Same today.
Other polls have shown contrary results, said Kelly McBride, an ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a national journalism education organization. Having seen other polls that represent a public frustrated with Iraq and desiring a media that would play a larger watchdog role of the war, she questioned the poll.
"The point of covering a war is to inform the democracy that is paying for the war," rather than to boost morale, McBride told Cybercast News Service.
I sniff a stinkin' liberal in McBride; the kind who perceives herself as nonpartisan and nonbiased, because she lacks the self-awareness to recognize her transparency.
Sorry to hear about Fred dropping out today Marie.
-red
January 22, 2007, 2:10 pm, MSNBC reporting that Thompson is out of the race.
I'm sorry that your guy pulled out, but what else could he do? I didn't feel his heart was in it and he was running out of money.
Also, you guys love him for what he represents as a conservative. But there are a lot of conservatives who didn't see it that way.
If he were the really pure at heart conservative, where did his support go?
I don't believe you are now representative of the Republican party. A vocal part of it? Yes. But many of your brethern didn't buy into Thompson's campaign and promise as the "new Reagan."
There is no "new Reagan." Just as for the Democrats there is no "new JFK."
The last 7 years have changed this country.
Have you heard what happened in the worldwide markets today?
Free-wheeling, unregulated greed has plunged this great nation into recession. Hang on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Word,
You are alot quicker than I am.
Stupid me, I give people the benefit of the doubt, till they start acting like fools.
You would think I would have learned by now.
Red Stater,
Thank's, sorry to hear about Duncan Hunter for you. The field is thinning out isnt it?
Joanne,
Thank's but Fred never promised to be "Another Reagan", he represented all Reagan's ideals!
There will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan, he came along once in a lifetime.
I think Fred's mother being sick had alot to do with this. I hope his mother turns out to be ok.
I am down, but not out, I will just study all the other candidates and see where my priorities lie. Whoever supports the Troops the most is who will get my vote.
We still have alot of great candidates (With the exception of Ron Friggen Paul)
As far as the economy, I'm not to worried because they are just having a hitch in thier git along!
We still have the lowest unemployment rate in history.
More people still own thier own homes than ever before, even with the housing bubble pop.
Bush know's what he's doing and how to fix it.
This is just a hiccup. It was bound to happen. We will come out of it.
I wouldnt panic.
Anyway thank's again Joanne, boy do I have to clean up my blog now lol
Wow, I hadn't even heard of cnsnews.com until now! Holy News Giant! I think their best pitch is the "non-partisan" claim...hehe...we won't tell if you won't!
Now, why is it again that we should believe this poll but not the one that says that 65% of Americans do not feel safer as a result of the efforts in Iraq?
Sorry about your boy Fred. I know you were an avid supporter and I can imagine your disappointment. You really were passionate about his campaign and that is nice to see from anyone.
Hopefully you will find someone else who fits your morals and values.
Joanne,
Good point about the economy. This is much more than a hiccup.
The only metaphor I can come up with regarding Bush's reaction to the economy is this one:
If your house were burning down, Bush would show up and say, "Quit running around so fast and worrying so much...you're making the flames bigger and that's where the problem is. If you would just settle down, relax and understand that all houses have fire and this is just a normal part of houseness, or housiness, and hey, this is going to pass. We're America! We can beat fire!"
Forget al-Qaeda, the economy is the new terrorist. Be afraid.
Federalist,
Thank's I think lol
You can be nice when you want to, which is rare but I'll take it where I can get it :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home