October 4, 2003

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media – especially the broadcast media – were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda.

"This is a dangerously revealing study," said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, "People who have had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics and the press now have more evidence." Fox, in particular, has been accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite its motto, "We report, you decide".

Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at least one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent of respondents had none of those misperceptions.

Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found that 45 percent of the public believed US forces had found "clear evidence in Iraq that Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda". In September, 49 percent believed that.

Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from 21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons during the war.

In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA considered a number of variables in the data.

It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.

More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.

Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.

The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent.

Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda"? 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no.

But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news''. Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.

Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks – NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.

Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.

CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.

As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.

PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.

Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it.

The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news.

Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions.

Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.

Jim Lobe, works as IPS' correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since the well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Visit his column archive.



 

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe3.html

 

"For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. "

I doubt the veracity of that study which was obviously sponsored by liberals and seeking to find support for the liberal point of view.

PBS is cranking out liberal propaganda much of the time. That's hardly a source of objective news. Just watching Fox and PBS makes clear that Fox is by far the more objective, fair, and balanced source of news. The main news anchor on PBS is an over the edge liberal and always has been.

In the fantasy world that liberals inhabit, there are no weapons of mass destruction and so the whole war was fought on a false premise. That's hardly a valid point of view. There are many theories and much speculation as to why we haven't found large caches of chemical or biological weapons. Only one of those speculations is that Saddam didn't have them.

They might not have Saddam on videotape giving money to bin Laden and Al Queda. But it's ludicrous to contend that Saddam didn't support terrorists, and that he's not currently supporting terrorists. Our military wiped out a terrorist encampment in northern Iraq near the Iranian border. Terrorists are attacking our troops now in Iraq and it's pretty obvious that the Baathists are sponsoring those attacks.

And the question of world support for our actions seems like a loaded question. The liberal camp would have us believe that everyone outside America was opposed to the incursion including most Iraqis. Nothing could be more incorrect. There has been substantial international support and that will continue. PBS and other liberal propaganda outlets are overly impressed with the mutterings of the French and Germans. Once again, they're looking for the answers they 'd like to hear.

Liberals love to demonize Fox but Fox has grown very rapidly and that's likely to continue. Fox fills the need for a fair and balanced major news outlet in the American desert of liberal controlled mainstream media that we've suffered for years.

PBS liberal? Because they air programs about animals? The Petroleum Broadcast System has a consistent conservative bias if you watch The Newshour with their guests who are overwhelming white, male and from conservative think tanks like Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. Now the Freespeech Television network is liberal. Quit setting up straw men like PBS as liberal.

We have already spent 300 million dollars looking for these enormous cache of weapons and haven't found diddly squat. And now the Bush Crime Organization wants hundreds of millions more, desparately hoping to come up with anything resembling a "weapon of mass destruction". It's all blather from a white house that has blathered on a very consistent basis.

Yea Saddam had this overwhelming and massive, chemical and biological capacity,that we haven't found a sniff of. He was going to use them on a moment's notice against us but they are so cleverly hidden we can't find them now. I'm sure we will find a secret handwritten diary in 30 or 40 years that; maybe,possibly, with the grace of Allah(oh that's right he was a secular dictator. That's why he and Osama,religious fanatic, were best buddies,right?); he was thinking of creating some. And this stuff about terrorist training camps. If the arguements about Saddam are valid(?) then we should be invading Iran and Russia and North Korea and Syria and China and Cuba and Pakistan and ....well when you look at it like the cheap labor conservatives do, we should invade and colonize just about every country except Bora Bora. As the monochromatic thought patterns of the cheap labor conservatives reveal,"Live exactly like we tell you or you will be bombed into oblivion,so we can auction off your country to the highest bidders,who will also(just by coincidence of course) be our campaign contributors."

Before you start whining about "no WMD", go look at the David Kay Report thread, and read about what they have found.

Saddam had numerous violations of the UN resolutions banning his WMD work.

The war was justified, your blathering notwithstanding.

1 Vial of Botulim Toxin = 500,000 Tons of WMDs.

Get Real.

You still have no support.

Kay found nothing of any significance and has reluctantly admitted so.

The Big Iraq Attack was founded on lies, sold on lies, and continues on lies.

Nonanarchist = blithering idiot.

...is one vial too many, and was still proscribed by the resolutions.

Why do you insist on supporting Saddam?

...what about the half-million dead Iraqi civilians your side was so rabidly predicting?

Maybe the calculator needs new batteries...

You are clutching at straws. Your sides lies and disinformation have been laid bare for all to see. Exxagerating a VERY remote possibility into an imminent threat is nothing more than a LIE.

You are a liar and a dealer in lies.

1. Botulinim is a dual use material which is used in Medical Research and Treatment as well as in the manufacture of cosmetics.

2. The distance from one vial of a Type B Strain (Type A is the one nomally used in Weapons Manufacture and is the type used by Saddam prior to the DISESTABLISHMENT of his weapons program in the EARLY 90's) to a Weapon requires considerable technology and MONTHS of work in a large facility. No such facility has been shown to currently exist now or at the time of Bush's War. Note it takes more than the 45 minutes Duhbya and Phony Tony were claiming.

3. The opposition to CORRUPTION in our own government and the CORRUPT use of our Military to further private political, and financial, benefits for people in High Office does not make one a "Saddam Supporter". That is a cheap CANARD that is barely worthy of notice other than to point it out for the lie that it is.

4. As for the number of Civilian Casualties is it your contention that thousands to tens of thousands which we have currently got is a humane policy? Is it your contention that because the number of dead is smaller than what was feared that it is somehow OK? What a sick bastard.

My assessment of you is downgraded based on your weak response.

...but they ain't makin' sense.

We may as well be speaking different languages.

You speak "Bush is EEEvil!"

I speak rationally.

Is there an interpreter in the house?

That Saddam had items and materials in breach of the UN resolutions is in no doubt.

Yet you insist on excusing him for it.

I'm sorry, doesn't your crowd think the UN should be the be-all and end-all of the geopolitical world?

So why do you think it's okay for Saddam to violate these resolutions?

"3. The opposition to CORRUPTION in our own government and the CORRUPT use of our Military to further private political, and financial, benefits for people in High Office does not make one a "Saddam Supporter". That is a cheap CANARD that is barely worthy of notice other than to point it out for the lie that it is."

You call it corruption. Yet I can't help but notice that Bush is still in office. Your opinion (and that's ALL it is) seems to be in the minority.

You say you don't support Saddam? I say you do.

Every action to prevent or sabotage the war effort only played into Saddam's hands. Your opposition to the war was, in fact, support for Saddam.

"Is it your contention that because the number of dead is smaller than what was feared that it is somehow OK?"

No...it is my contention that the number of dead is smaller from the war than if Saddam had remained in power that the war was successful.

As I told Parmenides, that you can't admit to this is proof that you don't give a damn about the Iraqis. You're blinded by your Bush hatred.

I don't care what your opinion of me is. And my opinion of you hasn't changed a bit.

They're going to great lengths here to support Saddam in every way they can. Thank God we have a President who had the guts to rid the earth of his evil when he had the chance to. I could never undestand why Clinton allowed UN resolution after resolution to be brazenly flouted while ordinary Iraqis starved to death.

The shills are nothing if not consistent - we've got our lie and we're stickin' with it.

If you are opposed to Bush killing innocents you are in favor of Saddam killing innocents.

It never enters their point little, very point and very little, heads that it is possible to oppose both.

Of course that is because what they are selling is a PsyOps line intended to confuse and confound.

Goebbels would have been proud of em'.

Stopping Saddam killing? Sanctions were useless and killed innocent civilians. Weapoms Inspections teams? In a country the size of Iraq? That was just Clinton's hypocritical way to worm out of facing up to Saddam.

The only way to stop Saddam killing was to remove him and the Iraqis themselves were too terrified to do it.

The liars of the Left seem to think Saddam would have left if enough people wrote enough letters to him.

Meanwhile, in the real world, President Bush saw what needed to be done after 9/11 and risked his entire career to make the world a safer place.