Fox News Misperceptions - Incompetence or Disinformation?

CarbineCaleb

New member
This is not a new study anymore, but I just came across it... It was a study on American perceptions of the Iraq war, done in 2003, by PIPA (The Program on International Policy Attitudes) at the University of Maryland.

The study had numerous portions and things being studied. The part I am talking about there is the study of Iraq war misperceptions as a function of news source. The 3 misconceptions probed here were:
● Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found
● Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
● World public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq

Now, these are all actually false. But here's how the people fared; the frequency of misperceptions, as a function of their news source. The percentages shown are:
The percentage of respondents who use that news source as their primary one, who made at least one error:
Fox: 80% of those surveyed
CBS: 71%
ABC: 61%
NBC: 55%
CNN: 55%
Print Media: 47%
PBS or NPR: 23%


Does Fox just not have the right answers... or do they prefer not to give them out?

Again, there were many things studied, but related to the above, was the question of how support for the war varied as a function of misperception:
Support for War and Misperception of Evidence of Iraqi Links to al Qaeda
(June – Sept 03)
Support for going to war among those who believed:
The US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization
67%
The US has not
29%


Support for the War and Misperception Iraqi WMD Found
(May – Sept 03)
Support for war among those who believed:
US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
73%
US has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
41%


Not surprising perhaps, but disturbing, nonetheless. The full study may be found at:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
 
I have not yet witnessed (personally) Fox as a news source outright lying about something.

What was the network (we all saw the video, I'm sure) that showed a story about the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban where the sheriff fired shots into a cinderblock with a semi-auto rifle and blew it to smithereens, and then with some other rifle and it didn't harm the block at all -- and then it was discovered that the guy had not fired the second gun at the block, but into the ground instead? It was like CNN or NBC or something. Here was a sheriff, basically trying to convince people that a rifle in .223 cal. was devastating to the block as a semi-auto, but a .223 rifle of another type (I forgot whether it was full auto or bolt action) would do nothing to the block.

If the news agency wasn't corrupted by anti-gun bias, it would not have mattered that the anti-gun sheriff had been deceitful in his "test": the news agency would have witnessed the deception and could have said, "Heyyy, wait just a minute here!" Instead, they acted in complicity with the crooked sheriff's anti-gun agenda. And it was NOT Fox News. And this was not a case of "getting it wrong," it was a case of FAKING IT UTTERLY.


-blackmind
 
Hey, just wondering...didja catch "Weapons of Mass Deception" tonight too? Because those figures were quoted to the tee.
 
Network news is entertainment, not journalism. They are in the business of identifying a target audience and then pandering to that audience's existing prejudices.

I would personally be very concerned about anyone who lists any TV network as their "primary source" of information.

I bet you could run the same survey on viewers of "60 Minutes" and their beliefs about so-called "assault weapons," or any other of a number of left wing psychoses, with much the same results.

If you are trying to make a point about network news, fine. It's a dead horse but you have every right to keep on beating it.

If you are trying to make a point about whether the Iraq war was justified, you're missing the mark.
 
"I have not yet witnessed (personally) Fox as a news source outright lying about something."

But we have recently been treated to that very spectacle over at CBS.

Hey Dan Rather, how's that last year of your contract coming... OOPS!
 
If you are trying to make a point about network news, fine. It's a dead horse but you have every right to keep on beating it.
I hadn't seen these figures before, and found them interesting - in particular, the combination of Fox being (I believe) the most watched news network, and it producing incorrect impressions on the justifications for war in most of it's viewers, along with the fact that most Americans who had such impressions tended to favor the war. I am not suggesting any conspiracy, because I don't think there is evidence for that - it is however, disturbing to me that on something so vital as the decision to go to war, a network news channel may have influenced that decision by putting out false information. To me this is nothing to be taken lightly - it's not the Cubs game.
 
● Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found

directly supported by the 9/11 commision findings

● Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq

absolutely true.

There are several kilotons of highly radioactive material [ documented by the UN/IEAE no less ], and fully capable of being used in a radiologial bomb.
 
Evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda isn't even controversial for anyone who's been paying attention. Google it.

Discovery of WMD's is thornier. . . did they ask whether large amounts of finished weapons had been found, or did they ask whether people believed WMD's had been found, period? Small amounts have of course been found. Again, this is not controversial unless you're talking to someone who's not paying attention.
Now, the amounts of WMD's (as in actual weapons) found have been small, not to say miniscule. But did the pollster ask whether WMD's had been found? Did they ask whether none had been found? Did they ask whether small or large amounts had been found? Makes a difference, after all.

World opinion . . . . I don't know. Don't much care about that one, but you're right, if FOX lied to people about it, they deserve to be pilloried.

In the end, I vote incompetence. That's always been my vote for ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest as well.
 
K-DAWG +1
as for world opinion, who gives a rats ass?! Most of the rest of the world is gonna hate us no matter what we do. Kinda like leftists are gonna hate us no matter how nice we are to them
 
9/11 Commission Findings I

Evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda isn't even controversial for anyone who's been paying attention. Google it.
Well... I guess you don't believe the 9/11 commission report then?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76
 
9/11 Commission Findings II

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm
President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon. He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well. Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President told us he also thought about Iran.59
Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way."60 While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.61
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.62
On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the U.S. response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities. The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time-not only Bin Ladin. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time, he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party.63
According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during "this round" of the war on terrorism.64
A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq's long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.65
Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz-not Rumsfeld-argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight."67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.68
President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.69 Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.70
At the September 17 NSC meeting, there was some further discussion of "phase two" of the war on terrorism.71 President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests, with plans to include possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.72
Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef's co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis' involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a "failure of imagination" and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.74
On September 19, Rumsfeld offered several thoughts for his commanders as they worked on their contingency plans. Though he emphasized the worldwide nature of the conflict, the references to specific enemies or regions named only the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Afghanistan.75 Shelton told us the administration reviewed all the Pentagon's war plans and challenged certain assumptions underlying them, as any prudent organization or leader should do.76
General Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Central Command, recalled receiving Rumsfeld's guidance that each regional commander should assess what these plans meant for his area of responsibility. He knew he would soon be striking the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But, he told us, he now wondered how that action was connected to what might need to be done in Somalia, Yemen, or Iraq.77
On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead. When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.78
 
So at least in terms of Iraqi government involvement in 9/11, at any level, direct or indirect, no, I don't think there is any credible evidence at all.

If you're trying to make a case today for some Iraq - Al Qaeda links (as opposed to Iraq - 9/11 attack links), there are still no links to the Iraqi government (not the new one either), but *geographically speaking*, anyway, Iraq is the home of fugitive Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose group has taken the name of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Since 2003, they have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda.

That's quite different from saying the Iraqi government is a 9/11 sponsor, however, and if we want to invade countries based on a *geographical criterion* that they *currently contain Muslim radicals*, we'll have an awfully long list, and should include most of the Middle East, the Near East, Great Britain, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Germany... I suppose we should also invade ourselves and remove our own government, since the Al Qaeda cells that actually operated in 9/11 were harbored by the United States.
 
Discovery of WMD's is thornier. . . did they ask whether large amounts of finished weapons had been found, or did they ask whether people believed WMD's had been found, period? Small amounts have of course been found. Again, this is not controversial unless you're talking to someone who's not paying attention.

Hmmm... so I guess you don't believe Hans Blix (former head of the IAEA and the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) - I won't bother to quote Blix, since hard liners will declare him as a member of an international organization, therefore "anti-American" by definition, and his findings all "suspect" as a result of him being from another country.

... but perhaps you don't believe David Kay (appointed head of the "Iraq Survey Group" by the Bush administration, who said on resigning in January 2004:
"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

"I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3424831.stm

...or Charles Duelfer (appointed to replace David Kay after he lost his stomach for the job of finding WMDs), in his final report closing the activities of the US' s Iraq Survey Group, in September 2004:
On Chemical Weapons in Iraq:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
On Biological Weapons in Iraq:
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.
On Nuclear Weapons in Iraq:
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.
Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Perhaps I haven't been paying attention? As far as I know, every major effort to find either a stockpile of WMD or an active WMD program in Iraq, has come up empty - zero, zilch, nothing, nix, nein, nada. As far as I know, we are not even looking anymore, stopped a year ago, despite the intense embarassment to the US goverment, who I am sure would pay any price to display the evidence that WMD existed at some level in Iraq at the time of the invasion - that was after all the rationale given in selling the war. All that has been found are evidence of pre-sanctions programs that were dismantled more than a decade ago, and some evidence that Saddam might have wanted to go back to WMD programs in the future. That latter is *very* different than saying that we have found WMD in Iraq.
 
Back
Top