Why Was Public So Misinformed On Facts Leading To War?
Source: mediainfo.com
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 sup****t 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 — sup****ted 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 sup****t.
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
sup****ting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in sup****ting
terrorists as the "main
reason" for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was "one reason."
Knowing this was a crucial element of his sup****t — even though he could
not prove the 9/11
connection — the president nevertheless tried to bolster the link. Bush
mentioned 9/11 eight
times during his March 6 prime-time news conference, linking it with
Saddam Hussein "often in
the same breath," Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor observed
last week. "Bush
never pinned the blame for the [9/11] attacks directly on the Iraqi
president," Feldmann wrote.
"Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists
among much of the
American public."
Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told me last week:
"It's very rare to find
a perception that's been so disputed by experts yet firmly held by the
public. There's almost
nothing the public doesn't believe about Saddam Hussein."
The question, again, is: Did the press do a solid enough job in informing
the public about the
key contested issues?
"If the U.S. war against Iraq goes well, then the Bush administration is
likely not to face
questions about the way it sold the war," Feldmann conceded. "But if war
and its aftermath go
badly, then the administration could be under fire." Newspapers could be,
too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnV9ya8uuQ0
|
