E&P: 5 Years Ago - Why Was Public So Misinformed On FActs Leading To War?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003729354

5 Years Ago: Why Was Public So Misinformed on Facts Leading to War?

By E&P Staff

Published: March 23, 2008 11:10 AM ET

NEW YORK Five years ago today, as the U.S invasion of Iraq continued in its early stages, E&P published an article by Ari Berman, then an intern here, that examined the public attitudes on the eve of the war. He probed polls that found, on the most basic point, that roughly 2 out of 3 Americans backed an assault on Iraq.

But the attitudes driving those numbers raised serious issues about a misinformed public and the media's role. He found that a startlingly high percentage falsely believed that Saddam helped plan the 9/11 attacks or Iraqi hijackers were involved that day, and that Iraqi WMD had already been found.

An excerpt is reprinted below.

*

When the war dies down, editors and media analysts should catch their breath and ask themselves: How much did press coverage (or lack of coverage) contribute to the public backing for a pre-emptive invasion without the support of the United Nations?

When it came down to crunch time, the American people — as evidenced by opinion polls conducted after President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam on March 17 — supported the attack by about a 2-to-1 margin. Some of this reflected the usual rallying 'round the flag that accompanies every war, but the truth is, Bush always had strong (if nervous) popular support.

So, what motivated Americans to back their president throughout the winter of discontent — when much of the rest of the world strongly disagreed with the need for war now?

Of course, there were many reasons, ranging from partisan politics to genuine hatred and fear of the evil Saddam. But there was another key factor: Somehow, despite the media's exhaustive coverage of the post-9/11 world and the Saddam threat, a very large segment of the American public remained un- or misinformed about key issues related to the Iraqi crisis. Let's look at a few recent polls.

In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed to give this appropriate attention?

In the same sample, 41% said that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons, which not even the Bush administration claimed. Despite being far off base in crucial areas, 66% of respondents claimed to have a "good understanding" of the arguments for and against going to war with Iraq.

Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N. weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction." Neither Hans Blix nor Mohamed ElBaradei ever said they found proof of this.

The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%.

The significance of this is suggested by the finding, in the same survey, that 32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in supporting terrorists as the "main reason" for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was "one reason."

MORE

[Selatius]

1. No representative democracy can long endure in an environment of ignorance and fear.

It necessarily gives way to oligarchy or autocracy. Hermann Goering provides us an answer about how to get people to do things they don't want to do.

[Iris]

4. And, in a way, I think most people WANTED to be in the dark about this.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Because the public is mean, stupid, and bigoted enough...

... to believe whatever the mean, stupid and bigoted media and leaders say.

[Kolesar]

3. Media did a crap job of "adjudicating" the lies of the "Swift Boat Veterans"

Neither of which was by chance. It was by design.

[snappyturtle]

6. PBS is running "Bush's War" on Frontline tomorrow night....streaming online too!

It will be a 'refresher' course in the lead up to the war. It runs two hours each tomorrow night and Tuesday night. Check here for a preview and synopsis:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

[magellan]

5. Corporate media were NOT doing their jobs and still aren't

The mainstream corporate media in this country is a sham. They've utterly failed at their responsibility to inform the public on matters of import including the run-up to the Iraq invasion. If all was as it should be they wouldn't be permitted to call themselves "news organizations" and would find their broadcasts relegated to PAID PROGRAMMING.

[Arctic Dave]

7. A -F'IN- MEN!!

[Orsino]

9. Yes. OUR airwaves are to be policed by OUR representatives...

...and it ain't happening.

It's the money, stupid. It's always the money.

[DemReadingDU]

8. The Reporting Team That Got Iraq Right

3/17/08
The team of Knight Ridder reporters, led by Jonathan Landay, Warren Strobel, John Walcott and Joe Galloway, produced stories that now read like a prescient accounting of how the Bush Administration sought to sell the war to the American people. Walcott and Landay spoke with The Huffington Post about the fifth anniversary of the war. Knight Ridder Newspapers has since merged with McClatchy Newspapers.

The Knight Ridder team, and now the McClatchy team, has frequently been cited as one of the few that got it right in the run-up to the invasion. At the time a lot of people said the rest of the media was ignoring you. Is that how you and the team felt at the time?

Well we certainly didn't see anyone doing the same kinds of stories, with the exception of some stories by Walter Pincus at the Washington Post, and much, much later after the Los Angeles Times got onto Curveball. But during the period when I guess, arguably, it mattered, when it could have and should have been a debate about whether to engage in this war, I think we felt that we were fairly lonely.

lots more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/the-reporting-team-that-g_n_91981.html