Ironworks Gaming Forum - Mistaken Impressions

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Mistaken Impressions (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76284)

Do we, the public, need to critically analyze our sources of information for accuracy?

Is it not clear that we should be suspicious, if not outrightly mistrustful, of not only the media but the Bush administration as well? For no partisan reasons mind you, but because elements of both have almost continually spun and distorted the facts with regards to Iraq.

How else can so many people have mistaken impressions about the war in Iraq?

Article

http://www.bayarea.com/images/realci...7946393308.gif

Quote:

A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

* U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

* There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

* People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

They noted that the Bush administration had misstated or exaggerated some of the intelligence findings, with Bush himself saying in May: "We found the weapons of mass destruction … and we'll find more as time goes by."

The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Why some news audiences had more accurate impressions than others was less clear.

Kull cited instances in which TV and newspapers gave prominent coverage to reports that banned weapons might have been found in Iraq, but only modest coverage when those reports turned out to be wrong.

Susan Moeller, a University of Maryland professor, said that much reporting had consisted of "stenographic coverage of government statements," with less attention to whether the government's statements were accurate.

The study found that belief in inaccurate information often persisted, and that misconceptions were much more likely among backers of the war. Last month, as in June, for example, nearly a quarter of those polled thought banned weapons had been found in Iraq. Nearly half thought in September that there was clear evidence that Saddam had worked closely with al-Qaida.

Among those with one of the three misconceptions, 53 percent supported the war. Among those with two, 78 percent supported it. Among those with three, 86 percent backed it. By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war.

On the Web:

To review the study, go to http://www.pipa.org

Fair and balanced. They report we decide!

If you go the report on page 14, you'll note that the origional graph does not match the right (EDIT: make that "left") side of the graph in you posted.

Quote:

How else can so many people have mistaken impressions about the war in Iraq?

Well, blindly believeing everything you are told is always a bad idea.

[ 10-10-2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraph:
If you go the report on page 14, you'll note that the origional graph does not match the right side of the graph in you posted.

I am unsure what your point is seeing as how the information from both graphs is identical.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seraph:
If you go the report on page 14, you'll note that the origional graph does not match the right side of the graph in you posted.

I am unsure what your point is seeing as how the information from both graphs is identical. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I ment graph on the left (which matches the graph on pg 14 of the report).

You'll note the origional report said that with the question "Since the war ended, the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction", and gives "print media 17%", and "PBS/NPR 11%", the graph that you posted has reversed the two numbers.

Yes, I see that now that you mention it.

Wow, you've got an excellent eye for detail Seraph! I missed that discrepancy when I looked over the full report.

Well, I think it was just a misprint and not an intentional distortion of the data. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I saw an October 2 associated press article on hindustantimes.com entitled "Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq." I kept looking for it to show up here, but alas and alack. It said a Kuwaiti newspaper reported that authorities foiled an attempt to smuggle $60- mil in chem weapons and warheads. It waid the suspects were watched after they entered Kuwait and later arrested -- and that Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would turn them over to the FBI.

1. Why haven't I seen this anywhere?
2. If it's true, wouldn't this mean one of the misconceptions is in fact held by the writers of the aritcle, and by all of you, rather than by the American people?

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I saw an October 2 associated press article on hindustantimes.com entitled "Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq." I kept looking for it to show up here, but alas and alack. It said a Kuwaiti newspaper reported that authorities foiled an attempt to smuggle $60- mil in chem weapons and warheads. It waid the suspects were watched after they entered Kuwait and later arrested -- and that Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would turn them over to the FBI.

1. Why haven't I seen this anywhere?
2. If it's true, wouldn't this mean one of the misconceptions is in fact held by the writers of the aritcle, and by all of you, rather than by the American people?

I found these two links using googles news search:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99011,00.html

http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/c...y.asp?aid=4498

Here is a link to the Hindustan Times home page, I did a site search and nothing about this story came up.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/188_0,0005.htm

Here is a link to the actual article from the second link I posted above, It appears the story has vanished into thin air, perhaps that is where it came from in the first place.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...4,00050004.htm

Quote:

I saw that too, and waited to see if it appeared on any other "news" sources.

A question about this study of "misconceptions" I noticed one of the questions was about "clear evidence" By who's standards is the term "clear evidence" used?
Did the asker take into account that their standard maybe differant then the answerer's? ie: The asker may need enough evidence to convict in a court of law, and the answerer may only need enough to convince them that there was a high probibility. It seems the people doing the study tried to take this into account in a study/poll they did in February, but not in this latest study if I read the report right. (page 13 or 14 IIRC)

Of course, if one were to forget that Kuwait is *not* a democracy and that the Kuwaiti Information Ministry is *known* to release propaganda statements, one might be forgiven to take such claims seriously.

Good journalists immediately attempt to corroborate any stories released by the Information/progaganda ministry. Clearly, it was a junior reporter at the Hindustan Times who made an error of judgement over the story - and the editor withdrew it when it became clear that there was no evidence to substantiate it.