ABC: 31% of Americans believe the media make things in Iraq sound worse

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1758483

ABC News Listens to Viewers' Concerns About Iraq Coverage

<snip>

Message Board: How Should the Media Cover the War in Iraq?


"I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good," a woman from West Virginia asked President Bush at a recent town hall.

Teena from Wisconsin agreed.

"If we have the capabilities of the media and we can see the blood, bombs, killing and horror, shouldn't we also see the teaching, cleanup, building, training of soldiers … and the many other great things I know our soldiers are doing for us?" she wrote.

Many of the postings expressed a desire to get a better sense of the reconstruction effort, and the improvements in daily life for Iraqis.

...

The latest national poll reveals that 31 percent of Americans believe the media make things in Iraq sound worse than they are.

But some of our viewers, like Deborah from Texas, said delivering the bad news served an important purpose.

"It is the job of the media," she wrote, "to report what's happening on the war front, and that means insurgent attacks and sectarian violence."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. That means 69% do not believe that.

If that "questioner" from W. Virgina wasn't a plant I'll eat my hat.
:puke:

[Julius Civitatus]

2. Also, 33% of Americans approve of the Chimperor

I bet they are the same 31% of the people here.

[Kolesar]

5. So, 2% see that our War in Iraq is going quite well

because they only watch Fox News(R).

[underpants]

6. Dear 33%

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/underpants/25

[Brotherjohn]

15. I love it! "Just ask 3 people for help -- we'll be two of them." Perfect!

I've been calling this group the "30-percenters" for a long time.

30, 33, same idea. You've got it pegged.

It's good to see that polls are starting to reflect reality.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Yes, same one-third who would OK Bush eating a live baby on TV

They are frightening, unquestioning robots who do precisely as they are told. Hard to believe it is that many people - but we are still the two-thirds who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.

[riona]

9. they may be lost to us forever

[CornField]

3. Interesting... almost the same # as Bush's approval rating

[stray cat]

4. If bombs were killing people in NYC would journalists talk about good news

[Ufomammut]

8. Come on, jump through the hoops.... Good Boy!

The ultimate irony of this facade is that it serves to further discredit the FACT that our press isn't and hasn't been "honest" or objective in its coverage of an illegal, pre-emptive invasion/occupation to begin with. You know, the "liberal" press. It blows my mind that people fall for this shit...

[Guaranteed]

10. Sure. Or we could also have the Abu Ghraib News Network.

24 hours per day, all inside Abu Ghraib, all the time. Just let the cameras roll. See the beatings and the sodomies and the snarling dogs and the Electrical Fun with Genitalia, any time you like.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Doesn't sound like the American people by and large buy the Bush spin

"nobody reports the good things we're doing in Iraq"
When a country is too dangerous for even media people to get around in outside of a small heavily fortified bunker complex in the capital, then the picture is going to across badly to the public back home. It looks bad because the reality is bad.
Sorry about that. "The image precedes reality" in general, but not if nobody can venture out to get the image. In that case reality will demand and get concessions.
Iraqi terrorism is hacking out a "no-spin" zone. Send in Bill O'Reilly!

[bluerum]

12. It's hard to talk up bullets, bombs and death. nt

[DanCa]

13. Than we should draft this thirty one percent

Cmon guys have the courage of your convictions. Enlist and prove us your points. Otherwise your just spewing empty rhetoric you gutless pro war whimps.

[TahitiNut]

14. Over 80 dead journalists - tough to call that "good news."

I suppose they could talk about the improved mixed drinks in the Green Zone Bar. :eyes:

[PA Democrat]

16. My response ABC's Good Morning America:

I was so deeply disturbed by your coverage of viewers’ demands for more “good news” from Iraq that I felt compelled to write.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the start. For more than 3 years now, I have watched in horror and with heartbreak the mounting death toll and casualties of our troops and of Iraqi civilians. War should always be a last resort, and I was appalled back in late 2002 and early 2003 by the cavalier attitudes of many Americans concerning the pending invasion of Iraq. I have also been appalled by the fact that most Americans have been required to sacrifice absolutely nothing for this war effort.

And now, when more and more information is revealed as to how the Bush administration intentionally deceived Americans about the cost of this war, about the WMD’s and the ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, Americans are apparently a little bit uncomfortable with the images of what their blind support for the Bush administration’s lust for war has wrought. Now, with the daily images of deadly sectarian violence resulting in thousands of senseless deaths, Americans want their sense of guilt assuaged.

Why are YOU, the supposed fourth estate so eager to shield Americans from the truth? Why do you feel Americans should not be shown the deadly impact of their blind complacency, their lack of intellectual curiosity in the hysterical lead-up to the invasion of Iraq? All over the world, other media outlets depict much more gruesome images than what we Americans are seeing. The American media looks like nothing more than an arm of the Bush White House in the light of the accessibility of other sources of news.

I doubt I will have the stomach to watch much more of your coverage in the future. By shielding Americans from the truth of the impact of this war of choice, you are condemning this country to repeat such a shameful endeavor.

[C_U_L8R]

17. A 30% write-off for this country

yeah that's the same 30% that prop Bush up.
the same 30% who think evolution is just a "theory"
the same 30& who think global warming is a myth
the same 30% who think a woman does not have the right to choose
the same 30% who think that homosexuals do not have the same rights they do.
the same 30% who think 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq are related
the same 30% who think the rapture is coming any day (thanks to their man Dubya)
etc etc etc etc

the same 30% who are RUINING our country

I say we write em of... ship em off.. send em back to school... something.
Maybe some electic prod re-education Abu Ghraib style (kidding.. not really).

Truth is .. these people have shown so much hate and evilness to the world
that I just do not care for them... and I don't care what becomes of them.
I don't care that they are Americans... because to me... they are the furthest thing
from what an American SHOULD be. Same goes for the same group that call themselves Christians...
yack.... they make me want to puke. What ever happens to this hateful 30%..
I say good riddence !! the world will be a better place without em.

[Brotherjohn]

18. I'm having a problem making the text of that story match the numbers.

Note that they didn't actually POST the numbers, other than to say 31% think the media makes Iraq sound worse than it is.

Then they write the entire story making it sound as though most people feel this (even though they say it's 31%).

Then they have the gall to say that "the vast majority believed the media were biased in their Iraq coverage".
Well what does THAT mean?! It obviously does NOT mean that the "vast majority" thinks the media is biased to make Iraq look bad. Because we know that that number is only 31%, which, last time I checked, wasn't a majority (much less a "vast" one).

Maybe 36% feel that the media makes it look BETTER than it is, and the rest feel the media accurately portrays the situation. That would be a wash, wouldn't it?

But then we wouldn't know, because they didn't give us the numbers in the article.

[Brotherjohn]

21. Jeez, have you read some of the discussion on that web page?!

These people really have imbibed in the Kool-Aid.

Someone actually stated point-blank that Saddam funded the 9-11 hijackings, and wasn't challenged on it!

Even Bush himself has (after being called to the carpet on it) explicitly stated that there was no connection between the 9-11 hijackers and Saddam!

[PA Democrat]

27. I saw the coverage of Good Morning America and I was thoroughly

confused by their "majority" comment and then the 31% figure. Maybe they used Diebold equipment to compute that 31% is the "majority"?

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. The 31% have been charging "Liberal Bias" and a political agenda

is so old and tiring. Tragically, they have an echo chamber...one that's been cultivating and making them feel ever more empowered over the past thirty years. The same echo chamber that makes them believe that their 31% minority is, somehow, mainstream.

They just don't understand why on God's green Earth the majority can't agree with their point of view! The reality is that since they have been unable to convince the majority to agree on their point of view, they are demanding the VIEW for the majority be changed to agree with them.

"Attack the media and kill the messenger!" Sadly, the networks oblige and appease through hosted political news views shows. Then, they (the networks) are clueless why they're losing viewership.

[zbdent]

20. Well, you know the "liberal media bastion" New York Times

sure did it's job by covering up the illegal wiretapping issue so that the Chimpinator could get re-elected without being shown as doing anything against the law (which the Repukes soooooo were concerned about prior to 12/12/2000) . . .

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Which Means 7 Out Of 10 Don't

Duh!
The Professor

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Spin!!!

Roland Martin on NPR yesterday made the best point about this issue when he pointed out, correctly IMHO, that the media is NOT supposed to be providing "PR" for whatever administration is in power at any given moment. Their job is to tell the unvarnished truth no matter how good or bad it might be, something that they have NOT been doing for quite some time now. Even IF the media really is "liberal" then it has nonetheless (somehow) become one of the GOP's best friends given how much the media seems to have helped enable them to enact most of their radical agenda by disseminating their false and/or misleading information, indulging in their "smear campaigns" against their political opponents and most chillingly, knowingly "sitting" on "bad news" and only releasing it when it is "politically expedient" for them to do so. In regards to the Iraq war/occupation specifically, my feeling is that no matter how many "rosy" or "touchy-feely" stories the media puts out there for us to see, it still doesn't change the fact (AND IT NEVER WILL) that the invasion/occupation was a BAD IDEA in the first place, Iraq is in social and political chaos that doesn't show any signs of abating, we're going into massive debt to help pay for this (mis-)adventure, and 2300+ soldiers have lost their lives, and Bush is saying that we may not even be out of Iraq by the time his presidency is officially over! Bush et. al can only "spin" their version of reality for only so long and I suspect that it is starting to wear thin on all but the most hardcore Bush supporters.

[DanCa]

24. A soldier died today, but the good news is a school was painted.

:sarcasm:

[gollygee]

25. about 30% of Americans

are willing to alter their perception of reality as much as it takes to stay behind Bush and Co.

[Justitia]

26. Same brain dead 30% as always. Traveling Freak Show. -eom

[Jacobin]

28. I have a simple question

Bush says we are in a war with the 'terrorists', right? In Iraq, which is the 'front', right?

How in the fork is the media supposed to report on a war if it doesn't show shit getting blown up and people getting shot?

:crazy: