FAIR  Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting     112 W. 27th Street   New York, NY 10001

FAIR STUDY:

In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views

March 18, 2003

Network newscasts, dominated by current and former U.S. officials, largely exclude Americans who are skeptical of or opposed to an invasion of Iraq, a new study by FAIR has found. of all

Among the major findings in a two-week study (1/30/03=2/12/03) of on-camera network news sources quoted on Iraq:

* Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.

* At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.

* Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than half a percent.

FAIR examined the 393 on-camera sources who appeared in nightly news stories about Iraq on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The study began one week before and ended one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at the U.N., a time that saw particularly intense debate about the idea of a war against Iraq on the national and international level.

More than two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.)-- expressed skepticism or opposition to the war. Even this was couched in vague terms: "Once we get in there how are we going to get out, what’s the loss for American troops are going to be, how long we're going to be stationed there, what’s the cost is going to be," said Kennedy on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03).

Similarly, when both U.S. and non-U.S. guests were included, 76 percent (297 of 393) were either current or retired officials. Such a predominance of official sources virtually assures that independent and grassroots perspectives will be underrepresented. Of all official sources, 75 percent (222 of 297) were associated with either the U.S. or with governments that support the Bush administration's position on Iraq; only four out of those 222, or 2 percent, of these sources were skeptics or opponents of war.

Twenty of the 297 official sources (7 percent) represented the government of Iraq, while a further 19 (6 percent) represented other governments-- mostly friendly to the U.S.-- who have expressed doubts or opposition to the U.S.'s war effort. (Another 34 sources, representing 11 percent of officials, were current or former U.N. employees. Although members of the U.N. inspection teams made statements that were both critical of Iraq's cooperation and supportive of further inspections, because of their official position of neutrality on the question of war they were not counted as skeptics.) Of all official sources, 14 percent (43 of 297) represented a position skeptical or opposed to the U.S. war policy. (Sources were coded as skeptics/critics if either their statements or their affiliations put them in that category; for example, all French government officials were counted as skeptics, regardless of the content of their quote.)

The remaining 96 sources-- those without a current or former government connection-- had slightly more balanced views; 26 percent of these non-official sources took a skeptical or critical position on the war. Yet, at a time when 61 percent of respondents in a CBS poll (2/5-6/03) were saying that they felt the U.S. should "wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time," only sixteen of the 68 U.S. guests (24 percent) who were not officials represented such views.

Half of the non-official U.S. skeptics were "persons in the street"; five of them were not even identified by name. Only one U.S. source, Catherine Thomason of Physicians for Social Responsibility, represented an anti-war organization. Of all 393 sources, only three (less than 1 percent) were identified with organized protests or anti-war groups.

Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy-- ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration's war plans. The percentage of skeptical sources ranged from 21 percent at PBS (22 of 106) to 14 percent at NBC (18 of 125). ABC (16 of 92) and CBS (12 of 70) each had 17 percent skeptics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goto the website for further statistical reference........

Theres a few more figures....for ya.....

Unfair media reporting?

A biased press?

Say it ain't so......

Have we been lied to all along?

Ask yourself, what is the truth and how do you define it to be so?

I can not believe it!

FAIR did a study and found something damning about CORPORATE MEDIA?!?

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

You mean the Mainstream Presstitutes are dishonest, present slanted propaganda as news, and act to inflame the passions and stampede people into supporting a dictatorial regime.

I'm shocked. Absolutely Shocked.

...are dishonest, present slanted propaganda as news, and act to inflame the passions and stampede people into supporting a dictatorial Iraqi regime."

I'm not at all surprised.

havle their pay.

whip[them] tell lies, laugh at them.

hurt their feelings, you bastards.

that'll teach them to allow you to poost.

...if you disagree present your thesis, but be prepared to defend it.

Generalized slurs may be humorous but they prove nothing.

Presenting information from one's viewpoint is what Comment Boards are all about.

There is a distinction though - I don't pretend to be presenting an "objective" "neutral" report. The mainstream presstitutes do. They Lie.

It is really no more complex than that.

One could get into why they lie but that's for another time.

"There is a distinction though - I don't pretend to be presenting an "objective" "neutral" report."

Why, Dio...what makes you think I was talking about YOU?

You may not...but IndyMedia in general does. That was the whole idea, wasn't it? An unbiased, neutral source of news?

Too bad it doesn't work like that. It's become a rotting corse of Truth, whose carrion crows are more than willing to believe anything, as long as it is violently anti-Bush and anti-Jew, no matter hopw ridiculous it may be.

Anti-Bush/Jew. oh that makes so much SENSE.

daveman, you really must stop reading this script.

it's worse than Reagan. Your logic leaps franticly

from one attempt to the next at current PR.

Our taxes, hard at work. You see, many of us didn't eat all that much fluride toothpaste when we were growing up.

loss of IQ....

baking soda works well. Should have switched before it was too late, sorry.

What kind of recreational chemicals are YOU doing?

daveman, I see staged COINTELPRO pro type provocateurisms.

there's you, of course. Pentagon pete.

you have a problem with your own side?

Wah, Wah, deal with it. stop sniveling.

In Sheepdogs world there are evil people who get paid to support big corporations or secret societies (pentagon petes) and then there is everyone else. no one else hates only the "COINTELPRO" tools.

The question is though who is the COINTELPRO being used on if no one else hates? and who is he using his "countercointelpro" strategies on?

I guess the only other possible explination is that he thinks it is possible to hate anyone except jews and bush but no one actually hates jews or bush (tell that to the NAZI). Therefore if anyone critisizes then it can't have anything to do with just not liking them.

Hmm doesnt sound very likely does it..

I guess he is just irrational.

for that wierd spin. it does prove one thing.

you are tired. time for a nap, cranky.

Snivelling? Hardly. Just callin' 'em like I see 'em.

Dude, you're looking at the world through conspiracy-colored glasses. Take 'em off.

Say! How do we know YOU'RE not working for some organization, spreading lies? Someone like The International Brotherhood of Marxists and Other Idealogical Losers (tm)?

Yeah...that's gotta be it. In the absence of any data to the contrary, and in many cases despite credible evidence to the contrary, go with the conspiracy theory.

$$$$$ comrad daveman $$$$$$$$

Say! How do we know YOU'RE not working for some organization, spreading lies?

Someone like The International Brotherhood of Marxists and Other Idealogical

Losers (tm)?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

exactly. you have blown my cover. I've been bad. Spank me

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Da tavarish, me drouges will take your women AND your

potato washers (you call them toilets) leaving you out

in the streets. Want some boiled potato?

Looks like it's time for a Berlin Wall around LA.

our revolutionary underground is everywhere.

at this very moment dedicated comrads are digging

towards.... opps that slipped out.

I personally think you already live in a cage most of the time. don't need no wall