portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

imperialism & war | political theory

Does anybody believe this NPR story?

NPR TITLE : Americans' Support for Iraq War Rises
Audio File ( Windows media player required )


homepage: homepage: http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=17-Jun-2004&segNum=3&NPRMediaPref=WM

unbelievable 17.Jun.2004 18:25


What a joke!
I guess they saw that survey about how few people believe their horse dung and figured it was license to parade lies, damn lies, and statistics as fact.
Can I get the money I sent them 15 years ago back?

Amount: -$15.00 17.Jun.2004 19:17

Freedom isn't Free! (It's $2.09/gal.)

I'm gonna call-in and pledge negative dollars next pledge drive.

stupid liberal media 17.Jun.2004 19:26

Tampa Boy

Stupid liberal media... [/sarcasm] What's worse, crybaby conservatives would pick anything apart to find the one word that doesn't completely eviserate the Dems and still cry out "DAMN YOU LIBERAL MEDIA!"

Cattle Poll 17.Jun.2004 20:36

Cheney Watch

What utter horseshit. Appropriately enough, the poll was conducted by the *Pew* Research Center. I know of only one person in my circle of friends who supports our preemptive sojourn in Iraq. Even parents and spouses of soldiers are voicing their opinion that they don't like the thought of their loved ones - who have already served the amount of time they signed up for - being sent back for extended tours of duty.

57% are saying that we were right to go into Iraq?? These people aren't listening to what is going on or what has been happening. They also say that Bush's approval rating rose from 44% to 50% after Reagan's funeral. HOW STUPID CAN PEOPLE POSSIBLY BE?

Yes, I am depressed.

they cook the polls 17.Jun.2004 22:50

national pentagon radio sux

don't believe the polls or you will be proles.

sigh of exhaustion 18.Jun.2004 01:37


I used to like npr about 10 years ago, until they changed format and started trying to go for mainstream media ratings. Too much ridulous, lunatic, must have a laugh every other minute mentality. As for bush and his war, amongst those I like to hang with, I was somewhat unique and open about being conditionally supportive of bush's decisive move to enter Iraq and eliminate saddam. But bush quickly went on to prove that he was absolutely clueless about how to undertake this kind of operation. He's totally blown it. We need to get out of there now

Geeze NPR Now? 18.Jun.2004 06:47


You folks amaze me.

I have never seen a bashing of NPR like this, even by conservatives.

I would not worry though.. it will go back to the bane by conservatives instead of you all.. Soon :-)

I do find it interesting that there was so much anger on PIMC about this report. Polls are dynamic they change at a drop of a hat. But please.. Carry on

NPR sucks - READ ALL ABOUT IT 18.Jun.2004 09:38


a collection of articles on the NPR fascists:

most NPR sources are conservative:

Shoot the messenger 18.Jun.2004 10:05

why don't ya?

It's NPR's fault the people are stupid sheep? They didn't do the poll, they reported it.

Poll reveals hostility to US and support for rebel cleric 18.Jun.2004 13:02

Curious George

I'll see your poll and raise you another one:


Poll reveals hostility to US and support for rebel cleric

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
17 June 2004

The Bush administration's last remaining justification for the invasion of Iraq has been demolished by a private poll revealing that only 2 per cent of Iraqis regard the occupying forces as liberators.

The poll results are devastating for both President George Bush and Tony Blair, who are fond of saying that future generations of Iraqis will thank them for liberating their country. Tony Blair has consistently said that history will prove him right for engineering the downfall of a cruel tyrant, even if weapons of mass destruction were not found.

President Bush, giving a pep-talk to American soldiers in Florida yesterday, said: "We have come not to conquer, but to liberate people and we will stand with them until their freedom is secure."

Yet the main findings of the poll, which was commissioned by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) last month and which was leaked yesterday, reveal that only 2 per cent of the Iraqis polled in mid-May see coalition troops as liberators, while 92 per cent said they were occupiers. In a crumb of comfort for the coalition, only
3 per cent expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

A total of 54 per cent believed that all Americans behaved like the guards at Abu Ghraib. But 71 per cent of those polled in face-to-face interviews in six Iraqi cities said they were surprised by the guards' behaviour.

Safety and security emerged as a major concern for the population in general, as nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighbourhoods.

Asked whether they would feel safer if the 138,000 US troops left immediately, 55 per cent agreed, nearly double the 28 per cent who held that view in a poll carried out in January.

Asked if the Americans should leave immediately, 41 per cent agreed, while 45 per cent said they preferred US forces to leave once a permanent Iraqi government was installed.

Hostility towards the Americans was also reflected in strong support for the rebel Shia leader, Muqtada Sadr, who galvanised the resistance to the occupation in April. His blend of religion and populism has proved popular The CPA's poll shows that 67 per cent of Iraqis say they support or strongly support him, making him the most popular man in the country after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. A total of 81 per cent of Iraqis had an improved opinion of Sadr in May from three months earlier, and 64 per cent said the acts of his insurgents had made Iraq more unified. But only 2 per cent would support him for president. The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 per cent, down from 47 per cent in November, while the troops themselves had the support of only 10 per cent.

The survey questioned 1,093 adults who were selected randomly in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba between 14 and 23 May.

The White House spokesman, Scott McClelland, put on a brave face when reacting to the survey: "The President has previously said no one wants to be occupied. And we don't want to be occupiers," he said

But a coalition official in Baghdad interviewed by the Associated Press news agency, which obtained the survey, was despondent. "If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it [the poll] is pretty grim," said Donald Hamilton, a career diplomat who helps oversee the CPA's polling of Iraqis.

In Washington, Congressman Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he found the poll "disturbing. ... It demonstrates quite jarringly that we are not winning the hearts and minds" of Iraqis.

Among the poll's other findings, 63 per cent believed conditions would improve when the Iraqi interim government takes over at the end of the month, and 62 per cent believed it was "very likely" the Iraqi police and army would maintain security without US forces.

A State Department spokesman said: "Let's face it. That's the goal, to build those up to the point where they can take charge in Iraq and they can maintain security in Iraq."

The Foreign Office had no comment last night.

Yeah, shoot the messenger 18.Jun.2004 14:11


why don't ya? says: "It's NPR's fault the people are stupid sheep? They didn't do the poll, they reported it." -- but they didn't really REPORT it.

Most of the interview by NPR's Michele Norris with Pew's Andrew Kohut consists of Kohut's spin on what's happening in Iraq and with the U.S. public - not on explaining the "poll" - nor even much analysis of the purported results of the poll itself. Neither Norris nor Kohut say much about the actual results of the poll - let alone revealing the survey questions that led to those "results".

Rather than explaining the methodology or wording of the poll - topics appropriate for an opinion researcher to discuss - Kohut goes on and on speculating on what "we" are thinking, spinning yarns pulled from the purported (mostly unstated) conclusions of the poll.

Kohut is not described as having any expertise on Iraq, foreign policy, etc., nor even on public opinion and social pyschology. By identifying him as the Director of the Pew Research Center, it is implied that he knows how to accurately gather information on public opinion.

However, I suppose if you knew neither how to design nor report a valid survey of public opinion, you'd talk about something else, such as what you'd have said had you been surveyed.

If you'd like to at least see the actual Summary of Findings, you can see them at this link to the Pew Research Center:  http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=216
However, even there they publish only phrases, not the complete verbatim questions - a practice I consider to be essential to a complete report of any poll. Without the exact wording, poll results not leave in doubt the most minimal credibility for the research and the researchers but also fail to provide basic information necessary to understanding the real meaning of what those polled were saying.

Occasionally 18.Jun.2004 15:40


Occasionally I hear what seem to be planted reports. I say planted because they seem to appear in consistent intervals. They don't make up the majority of reports, and they are notable because they sound different than others. The difference is that the interviewer seems to deliberately avoid questions that would open the issue up. The interviewer sounds like his or her questions have been scripted.

This is the case with this interview, which sounds like it was made to sell a certain point of view, and not to dig at or report the truth. It sounds more like a presentation than a news report or interview.

This is the case where the same person... I think it was Michelle Norris interviewed Richard Perle, giving him the chance to say he thought the US should pull out of Iraq (among other things), identifying him as a former Pentagon advisor, but never discussing his background, his role in making sure we were embroiled in Iraq, the reason he was asked to leave his official position as advisor to the Pentagon, etc. No, her lack of questions and background information allowed him to portray himself as an expert, removed from the situation and critical of it. His demeanor during the interview was, "I'm the boss, I'm the expert, listen to me," and she basically did that letting him sell his story with no challenge.

Another report was a profile of a military recruiter. It was depicted as a run of the mill profile, a "day in the life" kind of thing... a fluff piece made to garner interest in the field. No tough questions asked. Fluff while this guy is preying upon poor kids with no job prospects and sending them to possible death. He was also allowed to sell his story, like he does every day to these poor kids, to the listening audience.

NPR seems to have made a definite shift a few years ago as if some higher power took notice of what they were doing and came in to stop it... I forgot the name of that guy they put in charge... who put him in charge and how they did it... but it seems like a deliberate plant to control NPR. Kind of reminds you of how the US used to depict communist power over the media.

Kitanis 18.Jun.2004 18:44


We need a media that digs at the truth of any story, not one that serves as PR or propoganda for any side that's able to exert either economic or pollitical pressure. Don't think that everyone at PIMC dislikes NPR, or criticizes everything it does. I still get a lot of good information from it, but it has been VERY disappointing to see how they have become compromised and controlled.

Checks and balances... the Judicial Branch is supposed to check the Legislative and the Executive. Are they doing their job? The Legislative Branch is supposed to check the Executive and the Judicial. Are they doing their job? The Executive.. I fear the Executive Branch has stacked the Supreme Court deck and the Legislature sees their own interest in a more powerful Executive, for their ambitions are served when their own party holds the White House.

So who's going to check these powerful people who work together until dire straights forces them to take a stand? Who can force them?

We need an independent media, focused on telling the truth for the common good. NPR still airs a lot of material that makes conservatives foam at the mouth. I have seen MUCH worse criticism from the right. But people here are very disappointed that NPR has become so compromised, almost like the rest of the media, in my opinion not as much. I mean, what's left?

You really have to look a lot deeper for the truth.

"dance" is right. 19.Jun.2004 12:42

this thing here

there's so much more to polls than the percentages. and to just report the results, without discussing any other aspect of the polls, including most importantly what questions led to the results, simply results in a "news" story that is little more than propaganda reinforcement. "this is what everyone else thinks, so why aren't you?"

the fact that things are so bitterly divided and contentious in this country right now means that it is crucial that such things as polls and elections are done with the utmost scientific rigor. but after florida, and after the mess that is electronic voting, and polls which the media is incapable of reporting accurately, it seems that a even bigger mess, waiting to be exploited, is on the horizon. i think polls will no longer be objective things. though they may be done objectively, they will become the epitomy of a subjective psycholgical weapon, their results released at the most carefully timed and specific of points to achieve the biggest effect. namely, you are wrong in what you think.

and given that poll percentages DO change at the drop of a hat, i am somewhat suspicious of the purpose of so many polls so often. what are they going to prove? what are they going to point out that people don't already know? that people's opinions change up and down and down and up and up and down? what does that prove?

polls are NOT done for the benefit of the people who get asked the questions, for the benefit of us as citizens. they are NOT done for the people. they are done by and for the political and business power centers of the country. THEY are the only interests who benefit from knowing what percentage thinks this and what percentage thinks that. so i, as a citizen, hear that a certain percentage of people think this about a certain issue? great, so what am i supposed to do with that information? other than just hear it? but if i, as a politician, or an industry lobbyist hear that same information, there'a a ton of things i could do with it, a ton of actions i could take.