Full Version: Gallup poll done in Iraq
After hearing about this poll on a local radio station I was wondering why it was not covered on a majority of the large news networks.
Is it because this poll almost directly contradicts what CNN and gang have been reporting lately?
Story about Gallup Poll
Is it because this poll almost directly contradicts what CNN and gang have been reporting lately?
Story about Gallup Poll
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 14 2003, 04:06 PM)
After hearing about this poll on a local radio station I was wondering why it was not covered on a majority of the large news networks.
Is it because this poll almost directly contradicts what CNN and gang have been reporting lately?
Story about Gallup Poll
Is it because this poll almost directly contradicts what CNN and gang have been reporting lately?
Story about Gallup Poll
I'm not sure about how TV reported it. It made it into a NY Times article although I hear it wasn't given a prominent place. I too believe it is an extremely important story which probably hasn't been given enough coverage.
I also heard about this poll and it's findings.
It's GOOD, positive news and unfortunately you are right, it contradicts many of the claims of the media. particularly CNN. It goes against all that the anti-war machine has tried to propagandize and it IS sad. The American people, let alone OTHER nations, will most likely not see this.
betcha FOX runs it though
It's GOOD, positive news and unfortunately you are right, it contradicts many of the claims of the media. particularly CNN. It goes against all that the anti-war machine has tried to propagandize and it IS sad. The American people, let alone OTHER nations, will most likely not see this.
betcha FOX runs it though
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Oct 14 2003, 04:13 PM)
I also heard about this poll and it's findings.
betcha FOX runs it though
betcha FOX runs it though
You are right. Actually, it was mentioned only in the little short news updates and Brit Hume mentioned it on his show near the end. I saw MSNBC play it and i saw Dan Rather ran it (very briefly).
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Oct 14 2003, 04:13 PM)
I also heard about this poll and it's findings.
It's GOOD, positive news and unfortunately you are right, it contradicts many of the claims of the media. particularly CNN. It goes against all that the anti-war machine has tried to propagandize and it IS sad. The American people, let alone OTHER nations, will most likely not see this.
betcha FOX runs it though
It's GOOD, positive news and unfortunately you are right, it contradicts many of the claims of the media. particularly CNN. It goes against all that the anti-war machine has tried to propagandize and it IS sad. The American people, let alone OTHER nations, will most likely not see this.
betcha FOX runs it though
Concerning this issue. It actually clashes with what people think the situation is in Iraq (thanks to sensationalistic media coverage) so much that some simply refuse to believe the poll is true. That, I believe, is telling.
It's also indicative of what the CPA is actually doing there. Iraqis aren't exactly predisposed to be favorable to them and yet Bremer and the Governing Council have high approval ratings. Clearly, progress is being made. Whether of not the mainstream media chooses to report it.
QUOTE
But a sizeable minority felt there were circumstances in which attacks against those troops could be justified. Almost one in five (19%) said attacks could be justified, and an additional 17% said they could be in some situations.
I think this piece is obviously being run in that all or most of the posters on this thread have heard about it including me. It seems inconclusive to me.
What is shocking about the fact that Iraqis don't want American troops to scramble out of the country. I think Americans, Iraqis and other international peoples all recognize the probability of Iraq falling into civil war and chaos if left without a functioning central government. On the other hand this looks like an extremely high percentage of people who believe that attacks on American troops could be justified in general or in some situations.
When Gallup's results show 70% of respondents in favor of the war then I will join the chorus of liberal media conspiracy theory buffs. Before then it is regular journalism at work. Bad news always gets higher billing than good. And this is not too much to jump up and down about anyway. I fear more for the safety of my friend's son now than I did before reading these results.
Have fun with the liberal media anti-war stuff in here. Keep lauding FOX News' obviously biased news for ratings as a justifiable antidote to that perceived injustice.
It's true that this poll shows that the Iraqi people want US troops to stay longer, but this doesn't prove that they are happy with our presence. I think the fact that one in five (19%) feel that attacks could be justified and another 17% feel that attacks could be justified in some situations doesn't exactly breathe "content". They don't want us to leave for the simple reason that if we do the country will be a shambles. Like Eeyore said, this didn't get major coverage because it's positive. Don't forget the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads." It's been pointed out that it did in fact get some coverage on MSNBC and CBS. It's not what I'd call a major news story anyway. This really in no way changes how I think about Iraqi-US relations there. A good number of them support the people who are harming our troops and they only want us there to bring some order to their country (which doesn't mean they particularly like us). This merely serves to reaffirm what I had thought before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The Washington Post ran this article back on September 29. I mentioned in in my post here on October 3rd after watching Republican's endlessly quoting it on Capital Hill the week before. This has had plenty of 'selective' press. The Post article shed more light on the poll which, conveniently, never get's mentioned by Cheney or the other Republican's that have been quoting what they view as positive from the data. There is plenty to be worried about...even if you do believe the results are reliable which I'm not convinced they are, neither the good or bad of it. But if you do you should take ALL of it into consideration.
I don't wish to burst your bubble but you should really consider the entire poll and not just the part being pushed on us by this administration who is trying to cling to anything they can to save face. If 94% of the people feel less safe than they felt under Saddam's rule this is bad news indeed.
QUOTE
That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.
Similarly, half of Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him. In contrast, French President Jacques Chirac drew a 42 percent favorable rating.
Earlier, on Sept. 14, Vice President Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press" discussed findings from a Zogby International poll of 600 Iraqis done in August in conjunction with American Enterprise magazine. He described the poll as "carefully done" and said it found "very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done."
"The U.S. wins hands down," Cheney said, when Iraqis were asked what model of government they would prefer among five choices. Cheney's information, according to an aide, came from the American Enterprise essay on the poll that said 37 percent of respondents chose the United States, and 28 percent selected Saudi Arabia.
But a look at the raw data from the poll on the magazine's Web site revealed different figures. According to the data, only 21.5 percent chose the United States, while 20 percent refused to select any model, and 16 percent selected the Saudi government.
Cheney also said, "If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by two-to-one margins they say no, including the Shia population." He said that when asked how long they want the Americans to stay, "over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year."
But the poll also found that half of respondents said Western democracy would not work well in Iraq, while 40 percent said it would. Asked whether the United States would help or hurt Iraq over the next five years, 35 percent said the U.S. would help but half said it would hurt Iraq. Also, on the question of an Islamic government, the alternative offered was "or instead let all people practice their own religion," which implied that could not be done under the former.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.
Similarly, half of Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him. In contrast, French President Jacques Chirac drew a 42 percent favorable rating.
Earlier, on Sept. 14, Vice President Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press" discussed findings from a Zogby International poll of 600 Iraqis done in August in conjunction with American Enterprise magazine. He described the poll as "carefully done" and said it found "very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done."
"The U.S. wins hands down," Cheney said, when Iraqis were asked what model of government they would prefer among five choices. Cheney's information, according to an aide, came from the American Enterprise essay on the poll that said 37 percent of respondents chose the United States, and 28 percent selected Saudi Arabia.
But a look at the raw data from the poll on the magazine's Web site revealed different figures. According to the data, only 21.5 percent chose the United States, while 20 percent refused to select any model, and 16 percent selected the Saudi government.
Cheney also said, "If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by two-to-one margins they say no, including the Shia population." He said that when asked how long they want the Americans to stay, "over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year."
But the poll also found that half of respondents said Western democracy would not work well in Iraq, while 40 percent said it would. Asked whether the United States would help or hurt Iraq over the next five years, 35 percent said the U.S. would help but half said it would hurt Iraq. Also, on the question of an Islamic government, the alternative offered was "or instead let all people practice their own religion," which implied that could not be done under the former.
I don't wish to burst your bubble but you should really consider the entire poll and not just the part being pushed on us by this administration who is trying to cling to anything they can to save face. If 94% of the people feel less safe than they felt under Saddam's rule this is bad news indeed.
Danya-
I didnt know that Gallup was owned by this administration. Is that what you're trying to say? That the Iraqis who interviewed their people in Iraq were working for Bush?
hmmm.
I didnt know that Gallup was owned by this administration. Is that what you're trying to say? That the Iraqis who interviewed their people in Iraq were working for Bush?
hmmm.
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Oct 15 2003, 07:32 AM)
Danya-
I didnt know that Gallup was owned by this administration. Is that what you're trying to say? That the Iraqis who interviewed their people in Iraq were working for Bush?
hmmm.
I didnt know that Gallup was owned by this administration. Is that what you're trying to say? That the Iraqis who interviewed their people in Iraq were working for Bush?
hmmm.
I have no idea where you came up with that...I never said any such thing. I simply mentioned that every Republican in the senate, house, and committee hearings was quoting the 67% of Iraqi's who think things are going to be better in five years when this poll came out. They did nothing BUT talk about it for days. Somehow, thought they never said a word about the negative indications from the poll.
My skeptisim stems from the unknowns and lack of past numbers to compare any of these numbers to...it also comes from the current instability in Iraq and it's unsually high crime. Those things may influence the numbers from day to day but until we see more than one poll it's hard to get anything out of it. Maybe in about six months they'll be just like the ones in America...who knows.
Personally, I think there are a lot of ways you could interpret that 67% anyway. I don't think there is much to grasp from the poll either way...and I mean that about the negative aspects the poll showed as well. It's too soon to get anything out them.
QUOTE(Danya @ Oct 14 2003, 11:40 PM)
I don't wish to burst your bubble but you should really consider the entire poll and not just the part being pushed on us by this administration who is trying to cling to anything they can to save face. If 94% of the people feel less safe than they felt under Saddam's rule this is bad news indeed.
Oh, but I did...
It's simply that the good news outweighs the bad in terms of actual significance. Of course Iraqis feel less safe. For the average Iraqi it is less safe right not. No one denies that. However what is important is progress being made toward a future, safe, stable and prosperous Iraq. We (and all the Iraqis) know the war isn't over...
QUOTE(Eeyore)
On the other hand this looks like an extremely high percentage of people who believe that attacks on American troops could be justified in general or in some situations.
QUOTE(TennesseeLeftWinger)
I think the fact that one in five (19%) feel that attacks could be justified and another 17% feel that attacks could be justified in some situations doesn't exactly breathe "content".
"Could be justified"?
"In some situation?!"
Heck, I believe the attacks "could" be justified in "some situation". Perhaps the vaugeness of the question should be considered...
QUOTE(Danya)
Personally, I think there are a lot of ways you could interpret that 67% anyway. I don't think there is much to grasp from the poll either way...and I mean that about the negative aspects the poll showed as well. It's too soon to get anything out them.
Except current Baghdadi public opinion. Which is some pretty important info....
QUOTE(TennesseLeftWinger)
This really in no way changes how I think about Iraqi-US relations there. A good number of them support the people who are harming our troops
Could you elaborate? What good number? three or so?
It looks to me like pretty much everyone that regularly reads the news has heard about this poll. And all I had heard, before this thread, was the positive stuff. I heard it from several different sources, including the NY Times and the Washington Post, I think. I might have caught the negative stuff had I read closer, but I generally don't pay attention to stories on polls unless it's from a polling group I know regarding a campaign. As far as news since then, the media has reported deaths of American soldiers, and explosions. They have also begun incorporating building successes due to the allegations of bias.
I agree readily and heartily that coverage of casualties and explosions has been more prominent than the coverage on building advances and polls. Likewise, there's been alot of coverage on the $87 billion.
Does anyone think it's exceptionally odd that an American viewership would be more interested in casualties of Americans and allies, explosions, and the spending of our tax money, and less interested in whether an Iraqi school got new drapes, or how they feel about a done deed? Also, most of the negative news I heard after power got connected, way after schedule, was about attacks on troops. "Power still up after being fixed weeks after forecast" is a dog-bites-man story, not man-bites-dog. Most of the complaints have focused on defending the infrastructure being fairly good (albeit needing $20 billion more), in response to stories on attacks. "Are our soldier safe?" the citizens ask, and "we've got phone lines up" seems to be the admin. response.
So, it seems to me an impartial person would say that the coverage is what'd you'd expect w/o any real bias, based not only on sensationalism but what is generally of interest to viewers and readers. I have little doubt the admin. understands this and is crying foul to put pressure on media outlets to all become an extended up-beat campaign commercial, like Fox News. My question is, are you guys really not in on the joke? What's an appropriate ratio for you for reporting on an explosion in Baghdad that was targeted at Americans versus fixing one part of one aspect of another country's infrastructure?
BTW, on Meet the Press Sunday I believe Sen. Lugar admitted there are now more foreign terrorists in Iraq targetting Americans than before the war. I make no claims this has been buried, but isn't an "oops" of that magnitude, admitted by a prominent Republican, stuff that should be headline news?
I agree readily and heartily that coverage of casualties and explosions has been more prominent than the coverage on building advances and polls. Likewise, there's been alot of coverage on the $87 billion.
Does anyone think it's exceptionally odd that an American viewership would be more interested in casualties of Americans and allies, explosions, and the spending of our tax money, and less interested in whether an Iraqi school got new drapes, or how they feel about a done deed? Also, most of the negative news I heard after power got connected, way after schedule, was about attacks on troops. "Power still up after being fixed weeks after forecast" is a dog-bites-man story, not man-bites-dog. Most of the complaints have focused on defending the infrastructure being fairly good (albeit needing $20 billion more), in response to stories on attacks. "Are our soldier safe?" the citizens ask, and "we've got phone lines up" seems to be the admin. response.
So, it seems to me an impartial person would say that the coverage is what'd you'd expect w/o any real bias, based not only on sensationalism but what is generally of interest to viewers and readers. I have little doubt the admin. understands this and is crying foul to put pressure on media outlets to all become an extended up-beat campaign commercial, like Fox News. My question is, are you guys really not in on the joke? What's an appropriate ratio for you for reporting on an explosion in Baghdad that was targeted at Americans versus fixing one part of one aspect of another country's infrastructure?
BTW, on Meet the Press Sunday I believe Sen. Lugar admitted there are now more foreign terrorists in Iraq targetting Americans than before the war. I make no claims this has been buried, but isn't an "oops" of that magnitude, admitted by a prominent Republican, stuff that should be headline news?
QUOTE(pennDerek @ Oct 16 2003, 11:47 AM)
It looks to me like pretty much everyone that regularly reads the news has heard about this poll. And all I had heard, before this thread, was the positive stuff.
That might be true (I'm not sure, I don't watch much TV anymore...) however, a great question is why isn't it sinking in? Why can France still spout it's "logic of occupation" nonsense with a straight face? Anyone know how this is being covered in the foreign media?
I don't know, but I'd imagine a country like France has diverse news coverage to match the multiplicity of political parties/factions. I'd defer to someone from a similar government on that, with a grain of salt.
On why France is spouting empty rhetoric, quite possibly more ridiculous than ours? That's what nations do, especially France. It's their comparative advantage these days. They had a chance to work with the U.S. to avert war (which IMO they didn't take and the admin. didn't want), they could have influenced the process, they could have made a devastating case against invasion on different aspects. Instead, they relied on blanket denials and trying tb bully Eastern Europe into voting their way.
IMO (nice caveat when it's suppertime and I don't want to find citations), it's a matter of domestic politics. France's opposition to the U.S. aims at quieting the unrest of North African immigrants from their former colonies, protects interests in Iraq, and sets up France to be the EU leader in opposing U.S. authority- the "enlightened" counterweight to what many foreigners see as America's clumsy (or brutish) policies. I remember seeing a Daily Show where they interviewed Leslie H. Gelb, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he said that most diplomats in the international community wanted Saddam gone, they just didn't want the political/fiscal liabilities when they thought the "threat" case was weak. Nice of us to foot the bill in blood and treasure, eh?
On why France is spouting empty rhetoric, quite possibly more ridiculous than ours? That's what nations do, especially France. It's their comparative advantage these days. They had a chance to work with the U.S. to avert war (which IMO they didn't take and the admin. didn't want), they could have influenced the process, they could have made a devastating case against invasion on different aspects. Instead, they relied on blanket denials and trying tb bully Eastern Europe into voting their way.
IMO (nice caveat when it's suppertime and I don't want to find citations), it's a matter of domestic politics. France's opposition to the U.S. aims at quieting the unrest of North African immigrants from their former colonies, protects interests in Iraq, and sets up France to be the EU leader in opposing U.S. authority- the "enlightened" counterweight to what many foreigners see as America's clumsy (or brutish) policies. I remember seeing a Daily Show where they interviewed Leslie H. Gelb, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he said that most diplomats in the international community wanted Saddam gone, they just didn't want the political/fiscal liabilities when they thought the "threat" case was weak. Nice of us to foot the bill in blood and treasure, eh?
pennDerek: Good point 
It would be nice to have a better view on international opinion. That, is, I believe a major problem in this issue. If we are to believe the polls from "Aljazeera", "Independent", and "Guardian" international opinion has little bearing on the facts. Then again that could be said of the US on isolated issues (Saddam and 911). It's is a little difficult to discuss media coverage with such a small view of the whole.
World Press.org is a decent site, but I've seen nothing on his issue. Other paper's have press reviews. I personally think this poll should have been a headline story. Of course, that is purely my personal interests talking. I want to know how rebuilding Iraq is going. Some people it seems only want to know the bill (as if they'd be able to recognize it when they got it...)
It would be nice to have a better view on international opinion. That, is, I believe a major problem in this issue. If we are to believe the polls from "Aljazeera", "Independent", and "Guardian" international opinion has little bearing on the facts. Then again that could be said of the US on isolated issues (Saddam and 911). It's is a little difficult to discuss media coverage with such a small view of the whole.
World Press.org is a decent site, but I've seen nothing on his issue. Other paper's have press reviews. I personally think this poll should have been a headline story. Of course, that is purely my personal interests talking. I want to know how rebuilding Iraq is going. Some people it seems only want to know the bill (as if they'd be able to recognize it when they got it...)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.