"Intelligence doesn't work against a madman."

[Pure]

//Marketing. Sleight of hand. Misdirection. //

Yes. If you are familiar with courtroom and cross examination, you don't let the person make long speeches, and frame issues in their terms. It's tricky with the pres., this pres, esp. if he's determined to ramble.

Though Russert had some 'tough questions,' his follow-through was miserable. (Perhaps intentionally, in that he didn't want to appear to be 'going after' the Pres.)

 

[shereads]

Actually, exit poll data does not support this revisionist premise. One of the reasons the vote was so close was that the reasons that people chose to vote for one or the other were as varied as ever. There were no clear cut issues that anyone anlyzing the results could point to as the reason Gore lost or Bush won. But among the issues that were cited, fear of or support for war wasn't even on the radar screen.

Of course not. Americans knew they wouldn't support a war unless there was a threat to the U.S.

Even if we could have predictged 9/11, a reasonable person could assume that the U.S. response to mass murder would be to track down the murderer. Few people would have imagined that a president would use an attack by one enemy - Al Queda - to justify a war against someone else.

We saw people's faith in the ethics of a war president, at work during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. When Osama's name dropped out of White House press briefings and was replaced with Saddam Hussein's, people believed. As they should have had a right to believe. Because what kind of people would take attention away from the organizer of a mass murder, and use the event to promote another agenda?

The implicit link was made so often that a poll in the Miami Herald a few weeks before the invasion showed 60% of Americans agreeing with the statement that "most or all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq."

I wonder if Ralph Nader sleeps peacefully at night, or if he blames himself for some of what's happened. Did you know of any Bush/Cheney supporters who were as upset as the Democrats when Ralph Nadar announced as a third party candidate? I doubt if he took enough votes from the right to make a fistful of chads.

This is only anecdotal, of course, but I knew a number of people who voted with the Green Party, and the ones I spoke to said it was because Gore had not taken strong enough pro-environment stands. They knew Bush would be worse in that area - I don't think anybody fully appreciated just how much worse, and how quickly the damage would be done - and of course none of them expected a Nader victory; they were "shaking up the Democratic party," and they felt it was important to do so - to take the party back to its roots, on the environment more than other issues - and that 4 years of George W. Bush was the price they were willing to pay to accomplish that.

After all, how little damage can a president do in one term?

My Green Party friends have been pretty quiet since the Kyoto accord was scrapped. Not unlike Bush's own Sec. of the EPA.

Edited to add: A lot of nervous jokes were made about Bush as a warmonger in the months before and after the election. There was a Saturday Night Live skit right after the Bush victory, with GWB and Gore having lunch together, the GWB's most memorable line was, "I can't wait to have my war."

Data may not support the fear of a war under Bush, but pop culture reflected that it was on a lot of people's minds.

 

[Edward Teach]

Of course not. Americans knew they wouldn't support a war unless there was a threat to the U.S...

The implicit link was made so often that a poll in the Miami Herald a few weeks before the invasion showed 60% of Americans agreeing with the statement that "most or all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq."...

Following is an article and study I ran across about Americans misconceptions about the war and where they get their news. This is not some left wing think tank's propaganda, it is a study conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with the Center on Policy Attitudes.

Ed -


Eating what you watch: The perils of one-source news
10/11/2003
Reuters (St. John's Telegram)
Russell Wangersky

They say you are what you eat. Well, perhaps you are what you watch, too.

Because what you watch can give you a fascinating outlook on the world you live in, and not always one that even reflects reality.

A research group connected with the University of Maryland's school of public affairs has just concluded a study about what Americans know about the war in Iraq, and what they found out is a little unsettling.

Unsettling not only because a good proportion of Americans have wildly inaccurate perceptions about the war, but also because those who depend on particular newscasts for their information can wind up having particularly mistaken views on what has actually happened.

The university's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) began looking at what Americans believe happened in Iraq over a series of five public opinion polls, primarily focused on questions such as whether or not Iraq had been proven to have weapons of mass destruction, whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and whether much of the world had backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
PIPA chose those topics because they were demonstrably wrong or, as the institute termed it, they are "egregious misperceptions."

None of the positions is even remotely close to true; in fact, even the White House has admitted there is no direct connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Likewise, it has been abundantly clear outside the U.S. that there is plenty of opposition to the American decision to go to war.

HOOK, LINE AND SINKER

The thing is, a remarkable number of Americans believed the misperceptions.
But it's more than that. Among the people who held incorrect beliefs about the war, many of them received their information from one particular source -- the young and remarkably boosterish FOX News Network.

Here's what the study points out: "FOX was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions ... and were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."

The numbers were startling: among viewers who depended on FOX, 80 per cent of viewers believed one or more of the three misperceptions. Forty-five per cent of FOX viewers believed all three, more than three times the result from the nearest other network.

To put that in context, among CBS viewers, 71 per cent had at least one issue wrong, ABC 61 per cent, NBC 55 per cent, CNN 55 per cent, print media 47 per cent, and for those who primarily received their news from U.S. public radio and television stations, just 23 per cent.

It is a lot of numbers, to be sure, and some pretty hefty statistical work, given the number of surveys -- five -- and the number of people in the survey group -- 3,334.

What does it all mean? Well, perhaps that the media has not really advanced as far as people might like to have believed it has since the Spanish-American war and the sinking of the Maine.
Perhaps it means, like in so many things, that considering the source of the news you read and hear and see is just as important as considering the news itself.

And perhaps it's even more frightening than that; when you read the fine print in the methodology of the PIPA study, you realize that the study has also broken down its numbers based on political leanings -- and FOX viewers seem to tend towards being both broadly Republican and, more particularly, supporters of President George W. Bush, which leads to an interesting chicken-and-egg question.

Are viewers more likely to be influenced by the views of, say, FOX News, or are they more likely to gravitate to a station that seems to echo the political leanings they already have?

SCARY STUFF

Either way, it is pretty darned frightening that 80 per cent of the viewers of one particularly popular network could be critically mistaken on at least one of three obvious points about the Iraq situation.

It is just as unsettling that Arnold Schwarzenegger could so quickly become the governor of California and, more to the point, that his campaign crossed a remarkable number of lines -- to the point that there has been regular coverage of his political career in a new and untested campaign coverage forum.

Unlike many campaigns, his was dogged by Entertainment Tonight, Star News and a variety of other entertainment stations -- stations that arguably gave just as novel an examination of his politics as FOX News did of the political themes behind the Iraq war.

It is easy to dismiss someone simply for being an action hero. But, the fact is, being a modern film star is no mean feat, and requires foresight and skills that perhaps are well suited to state politics.

But it is also interesting to consider the role of entertainment reporters in the analysis of political platforms and long-term economic vision, and what sorts of misconceptions about the candidate might be formed in the minds of those who depend on entertainment news to guide their views.

It makes for interesting views, and fascinating sound bites.

Like, hasta la vista, informed democracy.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

There have been similar studies in the UK on public perceptions of significant foreign events gained from reading popular newspapers.

The general result was that the public doesn't care as long as the girl pictured on Page 3 has big tits. (or the man on Page 8 is reasonably desirable).

Jeanne

 

[OldnotDead]

Following is an article and study I ran across about Americans misconceptions about the war and where they get their news. This is not some left wing think tank's propaganda, it is a study conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with the Center on Policy Attitudes.

Ed -
. . .

The university's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) began looking at what Americans believe happened in Iraq over a series of five public opinion polls, primarily focused on questions such as whether or not Iraq had been proven to have weapons of mass destruction, whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and whether much of the world had backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
PIPA chose those topics because they were demonstrably wrong or, as the institute termed it, they are "egregious misperceptions."

I'll take this 'independent' study on any day of the week.

1) Maryland is hardly a haven of conservative thought. The only known Republican in the entire state is George Will.
2) Take a look at the PIPA board of advisors and find me one non-liberal.

Second point of discussion, look at the 'egregious wrong views' they chose to analyze. They only chose statements that seem to be 'wrong headed views of right wingers'. It would be a far more interesting study if they took a number of 'myths of news' to see ties to any particular network.

Finally - the statistical conclusions. Among the people who had the wrong views were people that watched Fox news and no other programs. There's an inferred conclusion that people who watch Fox news have wrong information. I suspect that as Fox appeals to a more conservative group, that there might be a larger percentage of its audience that has Fundamentalist Christian views of evolution. Just because those people choose to watch Fox does not mean Fox gave them that information. Some people come with their own preconceived notion of what is so. They do not listen, they do not learn. They only hear what they want to hear.

What I would take from this story is that there is a percentage of viewers from each and every network that don't pay attention and get the story right.

Final caution - I would be very careful about referring to ANY group within a hundred miles of Washington DC as independent. As any good fund raiser will tell you, the moderates in the middle are the least committed and least willing to pay to support a project. It is far easier to separate someone from their hard earned money if they HAVE an opinion. Thus, most of the 'not for profit' (read 'tax deductible recipient of conributions') organizations in and around DC exist through the generosity and support of one side or the other. Before you attest to someone's 'independence' ask to see their annual filing on sources and use of funds.

 

[minsue]

I'm picturing a bunch of generals flushing their stash right before the dorm is raided.

Mental image made me laugh out loud, Sher. Probably not the reaction you were going for, but what the hell...

It was interesting how many times the president repeated David Kay's name on Sunday.

I thought of you when I came across this yesterday.

Daily Show rant on Kay.

Kay Pasa?

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The French hoped that their strong opposition would influence the decision. They know better than most what it is like to fight a war in a country divided by fanatics of various Islamic fundamentalists.

We fought with Arabs against the Turks in WWI - Read Lawrence of Arabia.

We fought with Arab help in WWII in Africa and around the Persian Gulf.

We (and France) fought Egypt over the Suez Canal. We tried to do that when the US wasn't looking. The US said 'No' and we had to withdraw. Was that a mistake because if we had won we would have stopped modern Arab nationalism in its tracks.

Even after that we have had good relations with many Arab countries and are not so committed to Israel. Our soldiers were killed in Palestine by the terrorist Stern gang yet some of that gang went on to rule Israel.

The US's support of Israel - whether Israel is right or wrong - upsets many otherwise reasonable people in the Arab countries. That policy alienates other countries as well. If the US would tell Israel to negotiate, not using tanks, bombs and shells, then a settlement might be possible. As it is, people who see no hope are easy prey for the fanatics who promise them paradise in exchange for being a human bomb. Despair is easily perverted to hate.

Og

Sorry Og, i would never support any candidate who was for selling Israel out to a bunch of terorists. Hammas and Islamic Jihad and the Martyr's Brigade's manifesto is not to get a fair an equitable peace, it is not to see a separate Palestinian state, it is to drive Isreal into the sea.

The PAL Authority supports these groups tacitly if not openly and the citizenry do too. Asking Israel to sit on thier hands when their citizen's abre being blown to bits is unconsionable.

-Colly

p.s. I am over my bout of depression, thanks to all who sent notes.

 

[minsue]

Welcome back Colly!

 

[Guest]

Colly:

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks to you both

 

[Boxlicker101]

GWB didn't attempt to account for the missing months of service, or the failure to submit to medical screenings so he could continue flying, but he readily admitted that he was discharged eight months early to attend Harvard Business School.

"I worked it out with the military."

How nice that you were able to do that. During a war of which you were "supportive," like all good patriots.

Many, many years ago, while I was in the USAF, there was a regulation called Reg. 39-14. I know about this because I was a squadron clerk, and I sometimes helped people prepare requests for early separation. It allowed a person to be released from duty early to attend college. There was certain documentation required but it could be done without much difficulty. Probably all the services have or had similar regulations. What I am saying is that GWB could very easily have been released early if he had been accepted to Harvard and had made a commitment. Whether or not that is what happened, I don't know.

 

[shereads]

The numbers were startling: among viewers who depended on FOX, 80 per cent of viewers believed one or more of the three misperceptions. Forty-five per cent of FOX viewers believed all three, more than three times the result from the nearest other network.

...and for those who primarily received their news from U.S. public radio and television stations, just 23 per cent.

Yes. Yes! I knew my elitist liberal values were making me smarter. It just felt awkward to come right out and say it. Affirmation at last.

Too bad Vienna doesn't have the internet. Realguyusa would want to know about this study. Thanks, Teach.

 

[shereads]

CNBC is showing the president's interview again.

Another fabulous quote:

"Free societies do not develop weapons of mass destruction."

 

[minsue]

Love the new AV, sher. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I have to ask:

Almost where?

- Mindy

 

[shereads]

What I am saying is that GWB could very easily have been released early if he had been accepted to Harvard and had made a commitment. Whether or not that is what happened, I don't know.

That he was released from service early is not under dispute, Boxlicker; I mentioned it to point out the hypocrisy of his campaign having denegrated Clinton as a "draft dodger" because he accepted a college scholarship. Bush was in favor of U.S. involvement in Vietnam but chose not to volunteer. He was allowed to bypass a waiting list of 18 months when he enrolled in the Guard in time to achieve a deferment from the draft.

And having achieved the goal, he failed to complete his service. By his own admission, he asked for and received an early discharge. By the record, however, he was missing for months before that.

The disputed - "missing" - months are the ones before his dischrage. He had been transferred from Texas to Alabama, but there is no record of his having reported for duty in Alabama. No pay stubs, no co-workers who remember serving with him there, and no claim on his part that he was serving someplace else. Absent Without Leave. AWOL.

And now he has the audacity to authorize a "George W. Bush, Naval Aviator action figure. What a slap in the face, not just for Vietnam veterans but for Air National Guardsmen who served their full term of service. And yes, for conscientious objectors who were at least honest enough to admit they didn't choose to go to Vietnam, and have worn the draft-dodger label used so casually by GWB's supporters when he was running for office.

Russert asked him yesterday, "Were you in favor of the war in Vietnam?"

"Yes, I supported my government."

 

[shereads]

Love the new AV, sher. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I have to ask:

Almost where?

- Mindy

Almost there, Mindy.

Your AV is fabulous. Mine is the sort of easy way out that someone takes when she wants a Valentine's Day AV and doesn't have photoshop.

What I really REALLY really want - call me a dreamer, I'm guilty, it's true - is one of those candy hearts like Gauche's and Perdita's. But I want mine to say BITE ME.

 

[minsue]

I'll have you know there was no photoshop involved in my AV!

I'll still give you gifts, although I'm quite offended...

 

[minsue]

2

 

[minsue]

3

 

[minsue]

And my personal favorite...

 

[minsue]

'Dita has much more talent for it. Hopefully, she'll send you one. (hint, hint Perdita!)

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I adore Jon Stewart...he said that we can watch meet the press and make it a drinking game...every time Bush said "dangerous" "terrorist" or "madman" you can take a shot!

LOL

 

[Guest]

for ella, keep it in gif, otherwise it may be too large for AV size.

Perdita

Edited to add: heart maker

After making a heart save it, open it in photoshop or whatever, increase it to 150x150, adjust as you can, "save as" gif or jpg (gif has less megapixels). You can have two lines of four letters each.

 

[shereads]

Perdita and Mindy, thank you for the AVs!

This is such a suprise!! It's as if you read my mind; those are the best gifts, don't you agree? The spontaneous ones that show how much we've come to know each other?

I shall alternate between "Bite me" and "Let's go to counseling."

That one will be added to my list of things I'd like to teach a parrot to say, along with "I care a lot about you too."



Deliciously, I love Jon Stewart too. It's criminal that my cable company doesn't carry Comedy Central. In fact, my cable company can just bite me.

 

[minsue]

for ella, keep it in gif, otherwise it may be too large for AV size.

Perdita

Edited to add: heart maker

After making a heart save it, open it in photoshop or whatever, increase it to 150x150, adjust as you can, "save as" gif or jpg (gif has less megapixels). You can have two lines of four letters each.

Thank you for posting the link, 'Dita!! The site I found to make the bite me heart wasn't nearly so good.

- Mindy, now having to think up something clever...