Gallup: 56% of Americans think media’s war coverage is inaccurate

posted at 11:50 am on January 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

But of course, not everyone who does thinks they’re erring on the side of negativity. The partisan prism:

gallup-media.png

All in all, only a little more than a third think the media’s underselling the good news, such as it is. Here, for your enjoyment, is a letter sent recently to Editor & Publisher by a guy who’s presumably among that group. His topic? Capt. Jamil Hussein. Soak it up.

Do you really think that most people don’t notice how deferential you are to one of your guild-mates? You don’t mention the 61 sole-sourced articles. You don’t mention that the good Captain has not only not been produced, but he quit reporting when this story started getting attention from bloggers, which by the way was a long time before any “real” journalists would look at it.

The fact of the matter is that this stinks, and has stunk for a long time. But I am the only one in my office of professionals who knows anything about it, because the guild is holding the line for one of its own. Nice work, all you pros that know what we rubes need to know, and what we don’t, know it better than the people we get to elect. Nobody elected you to anything, much less a 4th branch of government.

You may think you are being tough on the AP, but that’s only because softball rules are de rigueur for examining guild-member misconduct, and even you can’t just roll-over anymore on this one. But I look at your Greg Mitchell’s’ off-hand assumption that the Haditha Marines are guilty as charged, despite some serious doubts about the evidence, and with no mention of the conflicts of interest of the witnesses, and lack of respect there is glaring.

Can you seriously claim that if there was one-tenth of the circumstantial evidence for some misbehavior on the part of any Republican as there is here that the AP is simply making things up, you would be screaming for blood, and if you can’t see that, then you don’t want to see it. Do you think you can fool everyone forever?

I guess I know the answer to my question: Yes you do, and that’s why the AP keeps stonewalling and you keep giving them the benefit if the doubt that you won’t give anyone but your friends (and certainly not Marines in combat). If you want to know why many Americans hold the media in contempt, take a look at the AP’s brazen Nixon imitation, and your abetting of it.

Dave Runyan
Seattle, Wash.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The sky is blue, water is wet, I’m hungry, the media is biased.

All the above are correct.

JammieWearingFool on January 4, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Yeah we know the media is biased.
So its gonna be up to you to expose Lib corruption in the new congress.
Maybe the republicans will actually pay attention now.

Iblis on January 4, 2007 at 11:57 AM

The blogosphere needs to stay on top of what the Pelosi gang will be trying to pull off with the complicit help of the MSM, there will be all sorts of BS behind closed doors and even out on the open that the MSM will refuse to report.

bbz123 on January 4, 2007 at 11:58 AM

And the other 44% are in a chronic fugue state.

rplat on January 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Allah, if the media’s coverage is so inaccurate, why the heck hasn’t HotAir taken a look at it? /sarcasm

Isn’t it interesting that Repubs generally think the coverage is skewed to make the war appear worse, and the Dems think it’s accurate.

What’s alarming is that such a large percentage think coverage has been accurate or makes things appear better. A big part of the problem, as Dave Runyan pointed out, is that the media ‘protects its own’. Given the Green Helmet guy, the wedding dress debacle, all of the many Korans that miraculously survive, the childrens’ toys, the Capt. Hussein flap, the doctored Reuters photos, ambulance staging, how can any thinking person feel that coverage has been accurate?

Oh yeah, they’re either getting their info from CNN or the Kos kids.

dalewalt on January 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Authentic, but inaccurate.

flipflop on January 4, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Tartare.

Kid from Brooklyn on January 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM

This is another one of those stories that I just didn’t see coming at all, along with the skankification of Britney Spears, Mike Tyson’s DUI/cocaine arrest, and the survey that suggested celebrities are more narcissistic and possess fewer real-world social skills than non-celebrities. Damn, I’ve got to stop getting caught off guard like this!

thirteen28 on January 4, 2007 at 12:07 PM

But of course, not everyone who does thinks they’re erring on the side of negativity.

True, but the majority believes that.

It makes sense. Democrats feel as though the media doesn’t report all of their stories, since they’re constantly in the negative of it. And this is likely true. The MSM can’t report all of the negative stories, at least not as well as Democrats can.

But they must be reporting a good deal of them as only about half on the Left seem to believe their side of the story isn’t getting reported compared to 3 fourths of Republicans who feel the same way.

Esthier on January 4, 2007 at 12:31 PM

But they must be reporting a good deal of them as only about half on the Left seem to believe their side of the story isn’t getting reported compared to 3 fourths of Republicans who feel the same way.

Esthier on January 4, 2007 at 12:31 PM

What is most interesting is the independent block, don’t you think? 67% feel coverage is accurate or too positive. Does not bode well for Bush. (I am a master of the obvious!!!)

honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM

What’s disturbing is that 87% of donks and 67% of “independents” polled here think that the media coverage is either spot-on or -remarkably – too rosy.

The 87% of donks is no surprise – since 2003 politically they’ve been wholly invested in helping along America’s defeat in Iraq, and now that it seems to be “working” for them (it did get them back into power in Congress, after all), they’re not about to reassess their thinking about the war.

It’s the independents who are worrying; if two-thirds of them seem to believe all the negativity that’s being fed to them on a daily basis by the likes of CNN, the AP, the NYT and Reuters, then all those Vietnam comparisons gain some traction – we didn’t lose that war, either, until we psyched ourselves out mentally at home.

Spurius Ligustinus on January 4, 2007 at 1:22 PM

What this poll really means:

32% of Democrats and 25% of Independents are idiots versus only 5% of Republicans.

db on January 4, 2007 at 1:25 PM

As I keep saying, this isn’t about news reportage, or even about telling the truth (as opposed to “truthiness”). This is about propaganda, plain and simple. The MSM has completely dropped its mission of reportage, and has become the propaganda arm of what they hope will be an emerging socialist state.

G-d help us all if we don’t stop it.

stonemeister on January 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM

What this poll really means:

32% of Democrats and 25% of Independents are idiots versus only 5% of Republicans.

db on January 4, 2007 at 1:25 PM

No, what it really means, is if you are a Republican who still believes the administration’s fairy tale on this, you need to start working on a very particular skill set: circling the wagons.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM

P.S.

If you add on the percentage of people not bright enough to have responded either way, it averages out to 24.66% — giving further creedence to ‘South Park’ claims that 1/4 of the population is retarded.

db on January 4, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Actually, honora, a poll is just that – a poll. it is only an indication of how people perceive a situation, not its reality. Just because more people believe that the press is spot-on accurate, does not make it necessarily true!!

pullingmyhairout on January 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Actually, honora, a poll is just that – a poll. it is only an indication of how people perceive a situation, not its reality. Just because more people believe that the press is spot-on accurate, does not make it necessarily true!!

pullingmyhairout on January 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM

True, but for for that matter, “accurate” is pretty subjective in this context. Who is to say what is “accurate” reporting? Happy New Year, pulling

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Who is to say what is “accurate” reporting?

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

You might ask Michelle; she is preparing to go to Iraq for just this purpose.

If the facts show that a news report is inaccurate, then the reporting is inaccurate. It’s kinda like that hypothesis / null hypothesis scientific like thingy you were supposed to learn about in junior high.

I’d like to see some exceptions to freedom of the press similar to the exceptions to freedom of speech. Similar to slander laws, if it can be proven that a news organization published something that was known before hand not to be factual, they should be held accountable — and that doesn’t mean just printing a half-hearted correction buried in section G. I’m talking about fines for isolated incidents and licensure revocation for repeat offenders.

db on January 4, 2007 at 3:48 PM

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

You are comfortable with Jamil’s reporting for AP? Not reported on by the MSM. You are comfortable with the fauxtography, not reported on by the MSM (or very little). You may be one of the dying breed who still accepts Dan Rather as being an accurate journalist, or the the NYT or the LAT is not liberal in its coverage. The MSM have a vested interest in not reporting any descrepencies in their coverage, and liberals will accept lies if it supports their beliefs (the standing ovation of Jefferson is. We have all seen the reluctance of liberals to accept the truth when it hurts them.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Not only do I think the News reported by the MSM from Iraq is slanted to make it look worse than it is, but I even assume that poll was slanted to make the MSM look better. The real number must be 90-95%.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 4, 2007 at 4:16 PM

If the facts show that a news report is inaccurate, then the reporting is inaccurate. It’s kinda like that hypothesis / null hypothesis scientific like thingy you were supposed to learn about in junior high.

Well, no.

I believe in this case, the issue is more one of balance.

The beef from the Republicans is that the emphasis is on the war part of…the war. And less so on progress being made in other areas.

So thinking that the media is not giving an accurate picture as in “make(s) situation appear worse” is less about accuracy in the narrow way you suggest, and more about the larger sense of accurate as in complete and comprehensive.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

You are comfortable with Jamil’s reporting for AP? Not reported on by the MSM. You are comfortable with the fauxtography, not reported on by the MSM (or very little). You may be one of the dying breed who still accepts Dan Rather as being an accurate journalist, or the the NYT or the LAT is not liberal in its coverage. The MSM have a vested interest in not reporting any descrepencies in their coverage, and liberals will accept lies if it supports their beliefs (the standing ovation of Jefferson is. We have all seen the reluctance of liberals to accept the truth when it hurts them.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Is this a question or an accustion?

You guys make me laugh. You and yours took us down this path; this has been one snafu after another. Rather than taking responsibility, you are already seeding your excuses–whaaa, whaaa!!!! it wasn’t us, it was that nasty media, those nasty liberals. So either way this pans out, nothing is your fault.

Nice work if you can get. (Tell me again about how liberals are irresponsible and don’t accept accountability for their actions. I can’t hear that enough).

honora on January 4, 2007 at 4:44 PM

No, what it really means, is if you are a Republican who still believes the administration’s fairy tale on this, you need to start working on a very particular skill set: circling the wagons.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM

So, then … you believe that the Bush Administration controls the press … honora?

Jaibones on January 4, 2007 at 4:45 PM

I think that the problem with the media is that they only report on one side of the issue – the one that fits their agenda, which is anti-war, bush is evil, bush is hitler, etc. I don’t think republicans are saying that it’s a bed of roses over there or that everything is just peachy. I think what republicans are griping about is that the reporting is so one-sided. it is a mess over there, but there are many positives that are consistently overlooked, time after time. So, when someone talks about ‘fair reporting’, I think this is what they mean. just give us the facts, all of them, all of the time.

happy new year to you too, honora.

pullingmyhairout on January 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

honora on January 4, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Are you comfortable with AP’s Jamil? Are you comfortable with the fauxtography?
No accusations, those are questions. If you are satisfied the the NYT, LAT, AP, Reuters, etc., is not biased than that will tell us about how you analyze news.
Wars have one snafu after another, you think WWII was a cake walk? If the Dems ran WWII we would have never won.
This was stated many times, this is a war agains terrorism that may take generations to win, not 4 or 5 or 6 years. You are the one putting words in my mouth, as you accuse others of doing. The liberals are not at fault, they have done nothing but complain. Don’t blame the liberals, they haven’t done anything. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and whine and point out the faults of those doing the dirty work. BTW, before we win this there will be more deaths and more mistakes, and you can bet that the liberals won’t die for any cause, nor will they make any wartime mistakes. The conservatives will carry the blunt of this war, and we will carry the criticism, and we will die to maintain the freedom in another country. And the liberals will not be held responsible for the mistakes, errors, loss of life…they will dodge that responsibility. You see, honora, I don’t blame the liberals, I feel sorry that they cannot participate in the liberation of a nation, they cannot feel the exhilaration of liberating Afganistan’s women, of watching people oppressed, beaten and tortured walk to the polls and voice their freedom. The liberals can only point and say, it is useless, it is a waste of resources, it costs too much. They will never feel the elation of giving people, a nation, families, a new and better way of living. Your kind have been around for centuries, Hitler, Mussolini, many others were removed by conservatives who stood and fought and lost their lives against evil, and ignored those on the sidelines who cheered for defeat and pointed fingers at the warriors who were protecting them. The first election after the war, Churchill was defeated as a war monger, the man who defeated the greatest evil, was pointed out as a man not in touch with the lives of the men and women he saved. Such is the whims of people, once danger is removed we no longer need the protector. And the savior is killed. You and your friends have been with us since the beginning of time. And because of brave warriors, you will be around for many more, watching. You never lose, others lose for you.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Does not bode well for Bush. (I am a master of the obvious!!!)
honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Yeah, darn, it doesn’t bode well at all…. He might not get to do another term as President.
Talk about obvious. /s

shooter on January 4, 2007 at 7:16 PM

triangulate the news? Or someone opinion.

Kini on January 4, 2007 at 8:25 PM

I think there is a fundamental problem with this poll. The 67% (R) who believe it is inaccurate and worse have some basis for that kind of opinion based on retractions and factual exposure of media errors. Where do those who think it is better have a leg to stand on? I can understand not questioning or knowing about the errors but this I dont get. Are there any examples of this?

Resolute on January 4, 2007 at 8:45 PM

Unless I lost my basic math skills, honora’s math doesn’t add up. I’ve been trying to post later, just in case I was seeing wrong.

None of these stats (and I consider all stats to be just that) are bad for Mr. Bush (either which way one adds them) but they prove disastrous for the press.

I fail to see where the Independents’ responses favor the press, or as she mentioned, are a problem for Mr. Bush.

Entelechy on January 4, 2007 at 10:41 PM

Polls and their results are only as good as those who are crunching the numbers.

Likewise, in my home state, do you beleive that this will get any press for making a blatant mockery of a broken system?

Emmett J. on January 4, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Well, honora, you made fun of someone in another thread for saying “tact” rather than “tack”… um, Chicken meet Roost.

“Is this a question or an accustion?” Accustion??

tickleddragon on January 4, 2007 at 11:09 PM

That is higher than I thought it would be actually. The other 44percent are too wrapped up in themselves to care..they probably don’t even know who their senators are from their state.

Highrise on January 5, 2007 at 4:43 AM

Unless I lost my basic math skills, honora’s math doesn’t add up. I’ve been trying to post later, just in case I was seeing wrong.

None of these stats (and I consider all stats to be just that) are bad for Mr. Bush (either which way one adds them) but they prove disastrous for the press.

I fail to see where the Independents’ responses favor the press, or as she mentioned, are a problem for Mr. Bush.

Entelechy on January 4, 2007 at 10:41 PM

Look at the center (independent) column Entelechy–42% say they think media is accurate, 25% say they think it is overly optimistic. The admin and its minions say the opposite.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Well, honora, you made fun of someone in another thread for saying “tact” rather than “tack”… um, Chicken meet Roost.

“Is this a question or an accustion?” Accustion??

tickleddragon on January 4, 2007 at 11:09 PM

No, I was pointing out that using tact in that sentence was actually quite a comical slip, versus missing a key. I’m guessing wordplay isn’t your thing.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM

If the Dems ran WWII we would have never won.
right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

LOL. Oh the power of self-deception.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Churchill was defeated as a war monger, the man who defeated the greatest evil, was pointed out as a man not in touch with the lives of the men and women he saved. Such is the whims of people, once danger is removed we no longer need the protector. And the savior is killed. You and your friends have been with us since the beginning of time. And because of brave warriors, you will be around for many more, watching. You never lose, others lose for you.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Churchill was defeated because people wanted central heating and refrigerators. WWII was a great leveler in UK society. The working class was no longer willing to live in relative poverty after having saved the nation. Read some history.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

The lowest point of Churchill’s life was after the elections. He knew he saved the world, and Britain turned their back on him. What you state is ridiculous, after the war naturally there was devastation, and lack of heating and electricity…Britain was torn apart by the bombing. That is not reason they voted him out, people were still digging there way out of the war. They wanted peace, and they thought Churchill was only a war president. The famous picture of him (or the back of him) at his pond was the lowest part of his life, he contemplated suicide, and was put on medical watch. He was despondant over the rejection of the British people. If you do not know that then I suggest this: The series of books “The Last Lion” by William Manchester, this trilogy is noted as one the best historical biographys ever written. You will get the true sense of history surrounding this amazing complex man. Of all the people who post, you may be the one that gets the most out of reading these three books. Enjoy.
And thanks for the suggestion, I will continue to read history, maybe even teach some.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 2:10 PM

WWII was a great leveler in UK society.
honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Hope you were making a bad pun.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 2:14 PM