Will Media Cover Poll Showing Troops Don't Back "Surge"?
As reported below, the Military Times has just released its annual poll of active duty troops, and its findings are striking. Among other things, it finds that only 38 percent think there should be more troops in Iraq than there already are. So here's the question. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates held a sit-down with a dozen troops who all just happened to favor bringing more troops in Iraq. The opinions of this handful of troops earned extensive coverage from CNN, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters. And yet, as best as I can determine, none of these same news orgs today mentioned the Military Times poll, even though it came out yesterday. Why not? Now that we have poll of the actual attitudes of thousands of troops towards a "surge," when will the media cover it?
Any media coverage of an event that does not support the Bush insaniity will be relegated to section C, middle page, between the ads for hardware and women's clothing. You would have to be a very slow learner to believe otherwise. My morning paper's front page is virtually covered with celebratory articles about the execution of Saddam, as if that was sudden, unexpected news. No reflection at all about the circumstances nor the probable consequences. Rightly or wrongly, the newspaper staff believes that this is what the public wants.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 30, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Will Media Cover Poll Showing Troops Don't Back "Surge"?"
A perfect topic for Atrios' "Simple Answers to Simple Questions".
December 30, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it's hopeless, but here's another one where Greg might write the so-called public editor.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 30, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reporting the poll. Needless to say this information will be virtually ignored by the media.
The escalation will be announced in a week or so as soon as someone can figure out how to avoid making it sound completely insane. If this were reported or the actual opinions of General Abezaid prior to his abrupt retirement, for example, it would be impossible for the President to appear sane -- so the media imagines that it is somehow their duty to help keep up the ever-fading illusion that he is not mad.
People might worry. Other nations might have doubts. Some people might even stop shopping.
My question is this: who is it these additional troops are going to fight, or are they just going because the administration is unable to think of anything else to do and feels compelled to be doing something?
global citizen
December 30, 2006 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth checking out the public editor for The Times today. He uses the entire column to chide the paper for a magazine article I don't recall. A reporter had criticized a nation's abortion laws for criminalizing women, but, the public editor writes, the reporter's anecdote involved a woman who, the nation's courts ruled, actually murdered her new-born. The paper had already agreed in a note that the reporter had no hard evidence that the court was wrong, and the public editor chided the editors for letting it go to press without fact checking in the first place.
Now, I've obviously no grounds for arguing with this. Since a reporter is unlikely to have made this up out of thin air and probably knew the court ruling, I assume he took the woman's story, perhaps supported by friends of hers. That's bad reporting, if it doesn't state the grounds for his claims, hardly disinterested ones, or reasons to suspect it.
I wondered, however, about the length and vehemence of the public editor's column. After all, presumably the reporter did have his story, it was not totally implausible given that a late-term abortion could have failed and led to what a conservative would call a live or "partial" birth, presumably the editors did not do anything investigative actually to confirm the court's ruling, the paper had already apologized, and I assume that the nation really does criminalize abortion, so the reporter could always have made that point and found another anecdote. How often do we complain about prompt apologies? Our anger about the drumbeat for war would not have existed if Judith Miller had written a single column, promptly retracted.
I often take away from his column a simple lesson: the right-wing attack on the press is swift, coordinated, and fierce. No wonder the media live in fear, avoid reporting embarrassing fact, and create a totally false pretense of balance when the Bushies mess up.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 31, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's just say Joementum didn't bring up the poll on his weekly lovefest with Blitzer.
Did the Democratic Party get lost on its way to Washington or are they still sleeping in like Bush?
One way to get the media to notice a poll might be to have an elected representative mention it in public. I thought we elected some? Where are they?
December 31, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Army Times article turned up on NPR this afternoon.
December 31, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Surge On Surge On Oh Ship of State
"Surge" Protectors
How many troops would indicate a mere “surge” versus a “large buildup”? Would 30,000 or less qualify for surge, but 40,000 or more represent a “large buildup”?
Such questions were rarely aired until last week. Until then, the Democratic leadership (with Sen. Harry Reid out front), perhaps wary of seeming too dovish as they get ready to run Congress, seemed very open to approve a “surge” if its short-term nature could be guaranteed by the president. Few in the mainstream media raised serious objections.
Then a new round of polls came out, showing that public support for adding troops was practically nil, no doubt stiffening the spines of a few Democrats and even a handful of pundits. Perhaps it occurred to them that a Bush promise on limiting the duration of the “surge” was, maybe, not so credible, given his track record.
With liberal bloggers leading the way, the call went forth last week: Henceforth ye shall purge the “surge” from your vocabularies and laptops and replace it with “escalation” – with all its echoes of Vietnam and, incidentally, accuracy regarding the current situation
January 1, 2007 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In what might at first seem counter intuitive, corporate media, in a rare example of long term thinking, is willing to forego short term profits for the larger goal of greater unitary control of all media being granted by those in power. In return for this granting of monopolistic control they refuse to criticize those in power who are giving them this gift. Added to this is the reluctance to go against their cronies in the military industrial complex. Hell, they are the military industrial complex. GE and Westinghouse, to name two media giants, are also huge defense contractors, don't ya know.
Next time you watch the news remember that NBC (GE) and ABC (Westinghouse) are really propaganda organizations for the defense industry.
January 1, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I noted above, the press isn't "afraid" of the right wing. They are the right wing.
January 1, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re surge/escalation: here's one where we needn't worry as much. GOP spin and vocabulary usually works, but I don't think they've pulled off making the policy publically acceptable this time by renaming it. It may even sound that much more pathetic.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 1, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe it or not, this morning on CNN they did cover the poll. Not only once but several times, did I hear the morning host speak about this poll. Just giving credit where credit is due since I'm not shy when it comes to slaming them for what they don't cover.
January 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the most significant movement of dissident soldiers since Vietnam, nearly 1,000 active-duty officers and enlisted personnel have petitioned the government to withdraw from Iraq.
Full story, About Face: Soldiers call for Iraq Withdrawal, appears here.
January 1, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
With some effort, I was able to locate coverage of the Military Times poll in today's NY Times Web Edition. In order to find it, I had to click on the link that says "Reuters." Then I went to "Reuters Politics," and there under the headline "Holiday Over, Bush Wrestles with Iraq Policy." the poll is mentioned in the third paragraph. Could the Times have buried the story any better? I'd be surprised to find it at all in the print edition.
January 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sargent asks:
I suggest we "help" them cover it. I resolve to do my little bit this way: Every time the everywhere the mainstream media publishes a relevant story on line, (i.e. Gates meeting with "enthusiastic" troops) and that story provides a comments section. I'll post a reply with a link to the Army Times Poll. I won't be snarky about it, I'll just make a comment that the readers of the article in question might be interested in taking a look at this poll. I've bookmarked the poll so I'm ready to go.
aMike
January 2, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink