Media and misperceptions about the Iraq War
The Program on International Policy Attitudes did a study last year that compared misperceptions Americans had about the Iraq War with what news sources they used to get information. The study examined three key questions: was there a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and did the majority of people in other countries support our decision to invade Iraq. The study provided evidence for the answers to each of these three questions (no link/no weapons/little support). They found that 80% of people who watched Fox had one or more misperception, while 23% of PBS/NPR listeners held one or more misperception. For the other media studied, 71% of CBS viewers had one or more misperception, 61% of ABC, 55% of NBC and CNN, and 47% of people who rely on print media had one or more misperception.
Studies like this are useful in examining what media sources are the most accurate, as well as providing insights into how our political beliefs influence what we see and hear.
Fox News is getting a lot of attention right now because of a new "documentary" just released called "Outfoxed"(watch the trailer) that claims that Fox news is unfair, unbalanced and biased. You can read reviews of the new DVD in a number of places, including Wired magazine and USA Today.
Studies like this are useful in examining what media sources are the most accurate, as well as providing insights into how our political beliefs influence what we see and hear.
Fox News is getting a lot of attention right now because of a new "documentary" just released called "Outfoxed"(watch the trailer) that claims that Fox news is unfair, unbalanced and biased. You can read reviews of the new DVD in a number of places, including Wired magazine and USA Today.
1 Comments:
Kudos to Kelly for researching her facts and looking for evidence to develop her opinions. This is exactly the kind of critical thinking/questioning that is important to figuring out the facts. The facts DO matter, and it's not easy to figure them out because people have many ways of interpreting the same information.
Just a few notes:
1. The survey we're discussing was conducted last fall, way before the 9/11 commission had issued any statements. So the conversation that took place in June about the commission's findings isn't relevant -- the survey was testing people's knowledge of what had been publicized as of last fall.
2. It's very easy to cut snippets of quotes and make them support particular points of view. It's best to go back to the original sources, to understand what's being said, and what's in context. Editing makes an enormous difference in creating impressions. Context is often what matters in developing an accurate perception of reality.
The 9/11 Commission report is available online: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ so we could go to the original report to see what they actually say about links between Al Qaeda and other countries. The Washington Post says (also quoting Kean, as Kelly quoted):
"Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R), a former New Jersey governor, said, "There were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."
Al Qaeda's ties to Iraq are sketchier. At the leadership level, Osama bin Laden and his associates for years saw Hussein as one of the secular Muslim leaders who had to be replaced. On the other side, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently reported, Hussein dealt harshly with Islamic extremists, and the CIA had intelligence reports that "the regime sought to prevent Iraqi youth from joining al Qaeda."
3. I hope that this class has helped demonstrate that journalists do not approach their work determined to communicate a preconceived bias, either liberal or conservative. They work hard to gather the facts and report them, within a system that naturally favors conflict over cooperation, breaking news events over long term trends, immediacy over reflection. Assuming all media are "liberal" or to discount "mainstream" sources simply because they are mainstream ignores all the factors that go into creating, and receiving, news and information. The consequences of dismissing credible information out of hand simply because the source publishes information that the reader finds disturbing, or inconsistent with opinions, are serious. All news sources can be better at accurately describing reality; that doesn't mean that all news sources are equally credible.
By
donica, at 11:46 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home