Media left out polling data in reporting Dems' claims of public support for withdrawal from Iraq
SUMMARY: Several news outlets missed a key point in their reporting on the Senate's defeat of two Democratic amendments calling for U.S. redeployment from Iraq: The Democrats' claim that their position reflects public opinion is backed by polling data showing that a majority of Americans support some form of withdrawal.
Following the Senate's defeat of two Democratic amendments calling for U.S. redeployment from Iraq, several news outlets reported that Democrats had "claimed to be in touch with U.S. public sentiment over the conflict" or "declared themselves on the same side as the majority of Americans." But missing from these reports was a key point: The Democrats' claim is backed by polling showing that a majority of Americans support some form of withdrawal.
After several days of contentious debate, on June 22, the Senate voted on two Democratic war resolutions, one proposed by Sens. John Kerry (MA) and Russ Feingold (WI) and the other sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (MI). Kerry's amendment set a deadline of July 1, 2007, for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops and failed by a vote of 86-13. Levin's measure, which called for the Bush administration to begin redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006, was defeated by a vote of 60-39, with all but six Democrats voting in favor.
As Media Matters for America and others have noted in recent days, the media's coverage of the debate over the Democrats' withdrawal proposals has often overlooked the results of several recent polls, which show that a majority of Americans support pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq. For instance, a June 14-19 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 52 percent of respondents believed that the United States should "set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq," while 42 percent disagreed. A CNN poll conducted June 14-15 similarly found that 53 percent of respondents favored a timetable for withdrawal, while 41 percent opposed such a measure. And an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted June 9-12 showed that 57 percent of respondents supported reducing troop levels now, compared with 35 percent who favored maintaining the current deployment. Further, 54 percent of those surveyed by NBC said they would vote for a congressional candidate who favors "pulling all American troops out of Iraq in the next twelve months," while 32 percent said they would oppose such a candidate.
As with their handling of the debate, numerous news outlets' coverage of the June 22 votes similarly ignored the relevant data. These outlets characterized it as the Democrats' belief -- and not as an assertion supported by data -- that most Americans support withdrawal, omitting reference to actual polls:
- A June 23 article by New York Times reporter Kate Zernike noted that Democrats "declared themselves on the same side as the majority of Americans" and described them as "believing that polls show a majority of Americans want troops to begin coming home."
- In a June 23 article, Washington Post staff writer Charles Babington noted a Washington Post/ABC News poll's finding that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say" the war in Iraq is not worth fighting, but nonetheless went on to report that "[b]oth parties ... claimed to be in touch with U.S. public sentiment over the conflict."
- On the June 22 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, correspondent Chip Reid noted Democrats' position that "there needs to be a major course change in Iraq and a focus on getting the troops home" and added that they "say that is closer to how the American people feel about Iraq."
- On the June 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Major Garrett reported that Feingold "proclaimed he and Kerry spoke for most Americans," before airing a clip of Feingold asserting, "I know that we represent the view of the majority of the American people."
By contrast, in an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney that aired on the June 22 edition of CNN's Situation Room, chief national correspondent John King responded to Cheney's assertion that "[t]he worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting," by citing the fact that "[f]ifty-four percent of the American people say it [the Iraq war] is a mistake, 55 percent say things are going badly in Iraq, 53 percent in our polling say the American people actually support a timetable." Similarly, on the June 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann introduced a segment on the Senate vote by noting, "Poll after poll after poll shows the same inescapable conclusion about Iraq: Americans do not like the war. Americans want the other Americans in harm's way there to be brought back here." On the June 22 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that "[m]ost Americans still oppose the president's policy [on Iraq] and support a soft timetable for withdrawal."
From the June 22 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And with us tonight for more, from the Hill in Washington, NBC's Chip Reid. And Chip, what is the dynamic here? If polls tell us this is an increasingly unpopular war for Americans, and if Democrats have that argument, how is it the two Democratic arguments went down to defeat?
REID: Well, I'll tell you Brian, in typical Washington fashion, both sides are claiming victory here today. The Republicans say they're united behind their "stay the course" position. They say the Democrats are divided and appear weak on national security. Democrats, though, say they may have some differences on timing, but they say they agree on a fundamental point, and that is that there needs to be a major course change in Iraq and a focus on getting the troops home. And they say that is closer to how the American people feel about Iraq.
From the June 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: Massachusetts Senator John Kerry defied party leaders and demanded a vote on a timetable to withdraw U.S. forces, opening the party to charges of abandoning the mission in Iraq. Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold stood with Kerry. Even as he predicted defeat, Feingold proclaimed he and Kerry spoke for most Americans.
FEINGOLD: We understand that we are not going to get a majority here. We know we're not going to even get anywhere near a majority, but the senator and I know that we represent the view of the majority of the American people.
polls, polls. The media has decided we can't really comprehend these issues so it's no need to take our opinioins seriously. Soledad Obrien said as much to James Carvelle this morning. He articulated that there are two versions of a dominate Democratic plan on how to resolve Iraq being debated, but that the Dems are actively debating and trying to devise a workable solution, and that the current stay the course strategy isn't working. She chastised him of course and he said that they (Dems) needed a plan that Americans can understand. I understood exactly what he was saying and I;'m an American. I'm paraphrasing of course. Carvelle told her, I think Americans will see is that we are actively trying to resolve this and that's better than saying lets just continue with what we know is failing.
anticipate all the actions taken by a completely out-of-control CinC? Never mind being able to anticipate the insurgency, bad news like Haditha, etc.
I applaud the Democrats for (finally) coming out strong on this, but it's crazy to think that the minority party will be able to implement the will of the American people. If they'd listened to us in 2004, we wouldn't be dealing with this runaway freight train of an administration today.
" If they'd listened to us in 2004, we wouldn't be dealing with this runaway freight train of an administration today. "
What did "we" say in 04 that would have changed anything in this war on terror? Perhaps, the possibility that the US would have "cut and run" back then instead of doing it now? Yeah, I can picture that one....nightly beheadings on al jazera brought to you exclusively by the Murtha knife company, thanks to 'americans to wussy to fight terrorism'.
To the we want to get as many Americans killed as possible crowd.
Here's one for the polls.......
I'm all for getting out of Iraq as soon as Iraq is in position to care for itself..........I would love it if it were next week......but if we have to endure this BS for another year or so....fine.......
But I have a feeling that this war isn't about the War on Terror anymore......if it ever was.......
Its about George W Bush.....our treasonous leader.......having the inability to fix what he broke and he is hoping that the next guy will fix it.....
If the next prez is a republican.......it will only get worse.....and Bush will be forgotten!!
If the next prez is a democrat........it can only get better.......and Bush's brainless followers will say that he....not the democrat is responsible......and then Bush will be forgotten!!
Basically.......it will come down to this.........as long as the media is controlled by the corporations........it will always be Clintons fault and Bush is the best president ever!! Makes me sick to my stomach!!
Excuse me......I have to throw up now!!
If someone has to back up their argument with "and polls show it too", then they're not arguing right. NEVER use "most people think so" as a valid reason for anything. Once you do, you will have to accept that as a valid claim if anyone else argues a point you disagree with (say, gay marriage now, or interracial marriage in the 60's).
I'm glad the news outlets didn't substantiate the Dem's claims regarding this with polling data - might make the Dem's find better arguments for it.
It is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, and it can cut both ways. As soon as you support your argument by citing polls, you set yourself up for mob rule on issues with which you disagree, as you point out.
In defense of the Democrats, however, they sometimes have to defend themselves against bogus Republican claims that Dems are "out of touch with mainstream America". When public opinion itself is the topic, then citing polls is legitimate.
The whole issue of Troop redeployment has simply been postponed, indefinitely it seems.
As for the two measures the Senate considered on the matter, the fact that one of them had the support of thirty-nine Senators is significant.
That signicant support is also the reason for the full court press we're continuing to see on the matter, despite the defeat of the resolutions.
The objective of this press is not primarily to massage public opinion on troop redeployment from Iraq (that is, to make you and I reconsider our opinions in the matter), the primary objective in the "media's" continued pressure in this matter, is aimed not only at those thirty-nine Senators, but at any other Senator who might consider supporting troop redeployment from Iraq.
I mean, it's something every Senator will have to consider at some time; unless that Senator wishes to see the occupation of Iraq as a permanent thing (which, if there are any Senators who think that, it'd be nice if they said so; so that the American People could begin the work of removing them from the Senate).
And so that's who's being worked on right now by this continued "media" pressure on the matter: The thirty-nine Senators who had sense enough to know that troops will be redeployed at some time (so why not now; why allow any more U.S. Troops to be killed over there) and any others who might likewise come to their senses.
There is no national security interest being served by the occupation of Iraq.
As for the "mission", and whether you could find the twisted logic to make it one of national security to the U.S.:
Last week's consideration and passage by the House of the non-binding H.Res.861, served as that body's version of "staying the course".
That resolution though, mentioned "national security" just once; not in relation to the "mission", but only negatively, and on the matter of troop redeployment:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq
...that is the single mention of "national security" in that "stay the course" resolution.
As for the "course" itself, or the "mission", we have from H.Res.861 only two mentions of the word "mission"; first in this finding:
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors
...and then in this declaration of resolution:
The House of Representatives declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq
"the mission of the United States ...is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"...
And "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq"...
A lot of U.S. Senators might wish to consider that "mission".
To not only consider whether such a "mission" is at all the work of the U.S. Armed Forces (sounds like the work of the Iraqi people; read it again)...
But to also consider whether such a "mission" is even possible.
"a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"
"a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq"
In the meantime, it's worth considering that troops will have to be redeployed from Iraq sometime (it's not a permanant occupation is it?); that there is no national security interest being seved by this occupation; that the work left to accomplish the stated "mission" is entirely that of the Iraqi people (who have yet to show any desire to do this work); that the "media" continues this pressure, in fear of those thirty-nine Senators, and in fear that there may be more who are coming to their senses on the matter.
I think the architects of this disaster really do consider it a permanent occupation; they just know they can't afford to call it that. How will we know when Iraq is "secure?" That is a vague enough term that they can perpetually push the deadline back to some nebulous future date.
This is true, and something I thought of right after I posted what I wrote above. :)
Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse here... but shouldn't our gov't work via popular opinion? At this point, we (the people) seem to have very little say in the goings-on within our own governmental structure (by the people, for the people). Most of what we hear these days (particularly by the Right, but both parties are guilty) is a high-and-mighty condescending aire that basically says, 'please... let the adults deal with business... go watch your American Idol'.
Isn't this the whole point of having gov't representatives... to support and tailor policy guided by public opinion and not special interests? Or, is that just too naive? I'm not sure any more.
That is the difficulty of a Constitutional Republic; our representatives are indeed elected to carry out the will of the people...but...they also take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes, public sentiment runs contrary to the Constituion, and that puts public servants in a sticky situation.
I share your disdain for condescending politicians, but I also fear mob rule.
I understand. People (as we have seen all too well over the past 6 years) behave in very irrational ways when made to be afraid. You're absolutely right. I just feel that, at this point, the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction -- and the voice of the people is rarely heard at all.
Maybe (by way of, say, a guy like Ned LeMont's relative success in Conn) this is what it takes for folks to wake up and take back the power (not to be too dramatic). I am very hopeful-fearful of these midterm elections. I often wonder if it isn't already too late.
Part of the Powell Doctrine is a requirement for strong public support for any campaign. It is ordinary men and women who are being asked to join the military, leave their families and risk their lives in Iraq. And it's ordinary people who will be responsible for paying over $1000 per year to fund it.
What we have now is very sinister mechanism for criminals like Cheney to launder taxpayer money (i.e. our looted treasury), funnel it into contracts for their cronies, and make themselves rich (how on earth did Cheney make an 8+ million dollar paycheck last year??). And, the real price for this greed is human life. Just horrible.
The majority of US citizens want us out of Iraq, but the people's representatives and senators are afraid to vote that way for fear of losing votes in November (and possibly losing elections)? Something just does not compute here. In either case, it appears to me those that voted with the majority on these issues are sellouts, looking out for their own self interests rather than the polled interests of the population. I can expect that from the party in power, but the minority party touts itself as principled and then we get this?????
It's embarrassing. And, these bootlickers should be booted out of office along with the rest of them.
Perhaps it's just as obvious that the polls mean nothing. The reason the elected officials aren't voting according to the way some want them to is because the majority of the people in their districts do not want us to leave Iraq. It may be a hard fact to swallow, but why else would an anti-war elected official vote in favor of the war? Either that or they ignore what the people want and really are chickenhawks like the rest of the republican side as is claimed.
Another possibility is that the polls are done by the mainstream media (which is obviously tilted to the left) and perform the polls to gather the results they need to influence public opinion. Which is more likely, since when a right leaning media outlet has a poll that shows positive results (for republican interests) it is blasted as lies and misrepresentation. But if a left leaning outlet has a negative result it is hailed as the "most accurate".
This is all personal opinion and polls show is the most accurate of reasons... 100% agree with explanation within the polled demographic (2% margin of error).
..........are to be applauded for standing up for what they believe! I am VERY impressed with Senator Feingold; he's speaks his mind; sticks to his convictions; and doesn't back down. I think a Gore-Feingold ticket for 2008 would be very strong!
On a separate note, I am getting sick and tired of sound bites from the Republicans using the term 'cut and run'. to describe anyone who disagrees with staying the course. Democrats need a slogan to describe the Republican stance on this issue.
I suggest 'stay and pray'!
What do you think?