Iraqi's want US to stay awhile

[kandrathe]

I heard today about this Gallup Poll conducted in Iraq which indicated about 75% of Iraqi's would like the US to stay awhile longer. Here is a Washington Times Article talking about it. This is the kind of news that gets buried and we never hear about. Here in the US we are bombarded each day with whatever skirmishes happened in Iraq reporting only the US casualties, and of course we need to be reminded daily of the number of US casualties since Bush declared an end to combat operations. I heard one interview last week of an Iraqi doctor who was saying that these Iraqi bomb blasts kill 10 Iraqis for every US soldier, which is probably just fine with the bombers. They are only seeking to spread fear and doubt, and delegitimize the current status quo in Baghdad.

What we don't hear about are things like; did they ever get the electricity or water back on? Are the hospitals running, and do they have an adequate supply of medicines? Are people starving, or do they have enough food? Is there any hope?

[Sir_Die_alot]

Isn't Yellow Journalism wonderful! Highlight failures burry successes just so you can destroy a presedent you don't like. National support for our troops and our contry's international standing be damned. Very cute.

[aurikan]

I wonder how this poll was conducted. Getting a representative sample of Iraqis must be quite the challenge, what with the situation over there. I imagine it would be as difficult as getting a representative sample of Afghans in order to poll what they thought of the state of their country after US intervention.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Quite true. I'm sure there is a large number of Iraqis that wouldn't dare participate in a poll yet because they still worry about the Bathist party or Saddam himself returning. While Bathist loyalists would feel no such reservation. I know if I thought it might mean my family dying I wouldn't participate in a stupid poll. :P

[Jester]

When the papers are full of good news, the jails are full of good people.

Journalists aren't propagandists. They're supposed to seek out things going wrong, in the vast majority case, and especially during war, or during an occupation. That doesn't mean they have to abandon objectivity, just that they remember their role.

I could name you a state where journalism consistently encouraged their troops, and their country's national standing. Here's a hint: in their language, it looks like "CCCP".

Jester

[Jester]

... a poll can't pick up.

Iraqis are interested neither in being left completely in the lurch, with no government, no constitution, no infrastructure, no military, and thousands of Islamist guerillas pouring into their country, nor in having a long-term US occupation or puppet government.

The plan of "leave immediately" they reject for the first reason, and "stay permanently" for the second.

They don't necessarily like troops occupying their country, but accept them as a necessary interim measure. I would imagine the majority would prefer the UN, rather than the US, but I could be wrong.

Jester

[Quillan]

I wonder how this poll was conducted.  Getting a representative sample of Iraqis must be quite the challenge, what with the situation over there.  I imagine it would be as difficult as getting a representative sample of Afghans in order to poll what they thought of the state of their country after US intervention.

A good question... why not read the article. The truth of this one, which seems to have eluded even the orignal poster, is in the details. I imagine the fellow who linked to this read the first paragraph, realized it supported his thought, and posted the link. If you did that you'd only read:

Most in Baghdad want U.S. to stay
From combined dispatches
BAGHDAD — More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see U.S. troops stay in Iraq for an extended period, according to a poll conducted by the Gallup Organization in the violence-racked Iraqi capital

Yup, there it is. So more than 2/3 is simple, thats > 66.6%. Personally, i wondered what an 'extended period' means. So I read on, and after changing the subject for the next two paragraphs so you think they're done on the subject, they continue:

Seventy-one percent of Baghdad residents believe U.S. troops should not leave within the next few months, according to the Gallup Poll released yesterday in Washington. Twenty-six percent feel the troops should leave that soon.

So of the 1178 who responded to the question 'should the US troops leave within the next few months', 71% said no. Personally, when i think of the american presense in Iraq, the words 'extended period' conjure up somewhere in the 10-15 year range, but hey, i suppose thats just my prejudice. Even so, think to yourself: 'when i read that sentance, what did i think?' Did you think that it meant LESS than 3 months? Try one more time: More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see U.S. troops stay in Iraq for an extended period --- think if your aunt betsy said she had to leave the continent and go to iraq for an extended period... surely you think, well, see you in 3 months!


Still, 26% of the people in Baghdad WANT the US to leave within 3 months. Add in this next line of the article:

Almost six in 10 — 58 percent — say U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying very well. Twenty percent say the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent say very badly.

Also misleading, they include both fairly well and very well in the 58%, then mention the very well seperately as 1 in 10. Notice they didn't show the math the same with fairly and very badly, otherwise they'd have said 29% and 9%... In addition, not including a neutral answer tends to favor the positive in this question. But what about this:

A sizable minority feel there are circumstances in which attacks against U.S. troops could be justified. Almost one in five — 19 percent — say attacks could be justified, and an additional 17 percent say they could be in some situations.

key words here, 'sizable minority' and 'additional'... so 19 % say attacks against the US 'liberators' are justified, and 36% say that they could be in some situations! By spliting the words and numbers they confuse people... does 36% of people saying attacks are justified seem like a sizable minority to you?

So maybe the headline should have read: over 1/3 of Baghdad's people believe that attacks on US forces are justified... but nah, we get
More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see U.S. troops stay in Iraq for an extended period

so 36% is a 'sizable minority' and 3 months is an 'extended period'. Once again, think about what those words mean to you.

Ok, blah blah blah, i'm a bad person, but this is my FAVORITE part. This article appeared within the past 2 days remember:

The poll of 1,178 adults was taken between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

and this poll was taken 6 weeks ago... the average attacks on US service members in Iraq since then has gone up from 12 to 17 a day. Most international organizations have pulled out or dramatically reduced their presense. Yes, the media is very misleading... good thing we have ann coulter and the original poster to protect us from the liberal dominated media. I'd have been happy if this trashy article had been buried rather than sully the truth so that joe sixpack could propagate the myth about liberal bias in the media in such esteemed halls as these.

Quillan

[Sir_Die_alot]

Journalists aren't propagandists. They're supposed to seek out things going wrong, in the vast majority case, and especially during war, or during an occupation.

Journalism is reporting everything significant. When you seek to focus on only the good or the bad that is propaganda. War and occupation usually means there will be more negative things not that these should be the only things reported on.

That doesn't mean they have to abandon objectivity, just that they remember their role.

Their role is to convey to people who recieve their information an accurate perception of what is happening. It is a clear sign a media source has abandoned objectivity when it's reports show only dissent and conflict in a situation where the majority of people involved view it positivly.

[Zenda]

Hello Kandrathe,

"What we don't hear about are things like; did they ever get the electricity or water back on? Are the hospitals running, and do they have an adequate supply of medicines? Are people starving, or do they have enough food? Is there any hope?"

One would think that after all this time such things would be working, but rebuilding after a war takes very long. And it's not only those obvious facilities. The following figures illustrate the effect of the war and aftermath of 1991 on the Iraqi people. And that one was 'mild' compared to the last one.

children dying at birth in 1990: 50 in 1000, in 2001: 133 in 1000
life expactancy in 1991: 62 yrs, in 2002: 56 yrs
illiterates in 1991: 11%, in 1991: 43%

I have no figures for Afghanistan, but we can safely assume there is nothing left there.

We don't seem to make progress in helping the poorer countries in this world.

[kandrathe]

Oh yes, I read the whole thing. I wanted to link directly to the Gallup site, but they require a paid subscription.

I agree that there were poll results that were a bit concerning to me. It was stated that 1/5 thought there were times when violence against US soldiers was justified. If 1/5 are avid supporters, 3/5 are on the fence, and 1/5 are sworn enemies, that is not a very stable situation. But, if the normal news reports indicate the status quo it seems to me that 75% of Iraqi's are cheering the 25% that are blowing us up.

QUOTE (aurikan @ Oct 15 2003, 08:15 AM)
I wonder how this poll was conducted.  Getting a representative sample of Iraqis must be quite the challenge, what with the situation over there.  I imagine it would be as difficult as getting a representative sample of Afghans in order to poll what they thought of the state of their country after US intervention.

A good question... why not read the article. The truth of this one, which seems to have eluded even the orignal poster, is in the details. I imagine the fellow who linked to this read the first paragraph, realized it supported his thought, and posted the link.

How did Gallup conduct the poll in Bahgdad?

Yes, the media is very misleading... good thing we have ann coulter and the original poster to protect us from the liberal dominated media. I'd have been happy if this trashy article had been buried rather than sully the truth so that joe sixpack could propagate the myth about liberal bias in the media in such esteemed halls as these.

Ann Coulter, and Joe Sixpack! Wow, you sure can read alot into my original post.

Just to clarify, I wanted to make two points. 1) I found this gallup poll interesting and the only place I could find it mentioned was that one article. The poll revealed alot more about our situation in Iraq than 6 months of the "all the news you need to know" mentality of the myopic and pandering US media. 2) I dont think the coverage is balanced, because I learn everyday in detail of each ambush or road side detonation, but I never hear anything about how the average Iraqi is faring through all of this. I don't need sunshine blown up my procto, but I would like to learn the objective truth of the situation.

I'm not interested in stepping into a mud pit to defend the way that the Washington Times reported the poll results. We could discuss how accurate or inaccurate the poll is, as my impression is that Gallup has a pretty good reputation in conducting fair and accurate polls. You may now feel better about yourself for first putting words into my mouth, and then using them to denigrate me as some SOB conservative. I guess to counter I'd have to accuse you of being an afficionado of Al Franken, but then, you aren't that funny.

Yes, the media is very misleading... good thing we have ann coulter and the original poster to protect us from the liberal dominated media. I'd have been happy if this trashy article had been buried rather than sully the truth so that joe sixpack could propagate the myth about liberal bias in the media in such esteemed halls as these.

Poor deluded Joe Sixpack, first he got it wrong about the al Queda link and now that whole liberal media bias myth. It's a good thing 55% of Americans are as enlightened as you.

Gallup Poll -- Are the News Media Too Liberal?

[Jester]

"It is a clear sign a media source has abandoned objectivity when it's reports show only dissent and conflict in a situation where the majority of people involved view it positivly."

I haven't heard any major western news source give any impression to the contrary. Both dissent and assent are regularly reported, from Fox News clear on through to the BBC. Can you name a network or newspaper widely distributed where this is not the case? I can't.

You, however, appeared to be taking a stance against people who report negative things, this "yellow journalism". Was I wrong in deducing this from your post?

Of course, in the pursuit of truth, which is the job of a journalist, support for the troops and the international standing of one's country must always be left aside, since truth alone is the aim. Right?

Jester

[Jester]

"...does 36% of people saying attacks are justified seem like a sizable minority to you?"

Hate to be too pithy, but ... yes?

Jester

[Thecla]

Yes, the media disinformation in the US is just outrageous. For example, as recently as June 2003, apparently a mere 48% of US adults believed that the US had found clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/alln....asp?NewsID=636

[kandrathe]

If they polled Americans, I think that would be the majority American preference as well. Let's get out of there as soon as we can. So IMHO, we should turn over as much authority to the Iraqi's and UN ASAP and let them run the place. It may be that these "incidents" will continue, but let them be an Iraqi security problem that the Iraqi's deal with.

I know quite a few people who have been called up to Active duty to serve because of the current increased military needs. I don't think people realize the sacrifice that these people are making for America. One young guy that works with me had just been married this last spring, they bought a house and are now expecting their first child. Now he has been called up to go to Kosovo for a year, and because of the tremendous cut in pay (and she was laid off), they have had to sell their house and she is having to move in with her parents. At least he won't be a target in Baghdad. The company I work for has hired her as a clerk to get them a little more cash, and so that she can have health insurance.

[Occhidiangela]

It will have its own biases, and is a month or two old. A jurist sees the world differently than I do, certainly, but I find his observations interesting.

Subject: A Federal Judge's Iraqi Report

This is a report by Judge Don Walter, a recently retired federal district
judge from here in Shreveport.  He was asked by the US Dept. of Justice to go
to Iraq to help them restore their judicial system.  He has made several
reports of this type since going there.  I thought you might like reading it.


THE LECTURE:

I really am not into public speaking as I am sure you are about to find out.  But my adventures in Iraq taught me something that I would very much like to share with you.  I have been fortunate over the past 5 or 6 years to get to such exotic places as Bosnia, Jakarta, Indonesia, and Morocco.  But, Iraq is my swan song.  First, I am too old for such adventures, and second, Charlotte (my wife) won't let me.  In mid-April, I got a call from DOJ asking if I would be willing to go to Iraq for up to 3 months to evaluate the justice system and make recommendations.  When I went home, Charlotte said without a pause, "how could I possibly tell you, no?"

Let me begin with a disclaimer, I was in Iraq for fewer than 40 days, I was in Baghdad for a little over three weeks and in the three provinces of the far south for two weeks.  I am limited in what I saw and heard.  Needless to say, the opinions are my own.  I want to make it clear that, initially, I vehemently opposed the war.

The team of 12 that went to Iraq was to access the judiciary and to make commendations for the future. We were sent too soon and without sufficient planning and forethought.  Accordingly we were forced to play our part by ear.  Ultimately, we were successful.  No thanks to the civil authorities in Washington or Iraq.

We were divided into 4 teams.  We were the southern team: Mike Farhang, an AUSA from Los Angeles, Harvard Suma Undergraduate, Harvard Law Review, Linguist, 5 languages including Arabic; Rich Coughlin, Federal Public Defender from New Jersey, who abandoned his wife and 23 month old daughter to volunteer for this; and me.  We were accompanied by an interpreter and protected by what I called our "minders, "four Iraqis well-armed with 9mm hand guns and AK47's.

During the first two weeks, we talked to a few hundred Iraqis and interviewed about 60 judges.  Our help came from our Danish colleagues and the First Armored Division (UK), not from the civil authorities - OPCA, Office of the Provisional Coalition Authority, (formerly ORHA), Ambassador Brenner's group. Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now
convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Ba'athists, indeed, we should have done it sooner.    

What changed my mind? 

When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one with the bodies of 1200 children.  There have been credible reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a monumental scale and fear on a larger one.  That fear is still palpable. I have seen the machines and places of torture. 

I will tell you one story told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the Medical College in Basra.  It was one of the most shocking to me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's security agents was sent to question a Shiite in his home.  The interrogation took place in the living room in the presence of the man's wife, who held their three month old child.  A question was asked and the thug did not like the answer; he asked it again, same answer.  He grabbed the baby from its mother and plucked its eye out. And then repeated his question.  Worse things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the participation, of Saddam, his family and the Bathist regime.

Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and Germany and the UN.  Every one of them knew what was going on there, but France and the UN were making millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot, I know, remake the world, not do I believe we should.  We cannot stamp out evil, I know.  But this time we were morally right and our economic and strategic interests were involved.  I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing. We
must have the moral courage to see this through, to do whatever it takes to secure responsible government for the Iraqi people.  Having decided to topple Saddam, we cannot abandon those who trust us. 

I fear we will quit as the horrors of war come into our living rooms. Look
at the stories you are getting from the media today.  The steady drip, drip,
drip of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have
assumed.  WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. 

The news you watch, listen to and read is highly selective.  Good news doesn't sell.
90% of the damage you see on TV was caused by Iraqis, not by US.  All the damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines and water supplies, as well as shops, museums, and semi-public buildings (like hotels) was caused either by the Iraqi army in its death throws or Iraqi civilians looting and rioting. The day after the war was over, there was nearly 0 power being generated in Iraq.  45 days later, 1/3 of the total national potential of 8000 MW is up and running.  Downed power lines are being repaired and were about 70% complete when I left.  There is water purification where little or none existed before...this time to everyone. 

Oil is 95% of the Iraqi GNP.  In order for Iraq to survive, it must sell oil.  All the damage to the oil fields was done by the Iraqi army or looters.  The 14 story office building of the Southern Iraq Oil Company in Basra was torched by Ba'athists, destroying all of the books, records and computers of the company.  Today, the refinery at Bayji is at 75% of
capacity.  The crude pipeline between Kirkuk and Bayji has been repaired, though the Ba'athist keep trying to disrupt it. 

If we are doing all this for the people, why are they shooting at us?

The general population isn't.  By my sample, 90% are glad we came and the majority doesn't want us to leave for some time to come, but there are still plenty of bad guys, the Bathists who lived well under Saddam. The thugs of the old regime still hope to return to power, and there are plenty of them, mostly located in Suni areas.  Then too, Saddam, in the Ramadan amnesty, let every murderer, butcher, rapist and violent criminal loose on his own people.  There are interests, including organized crime, with a desire for anarchy and profit.  There are disruptive forces from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.

We saw poverty on a scale that I have never witnessed except in pictures of Haiti.  I saw one little girl: she was slender, very pretty, about 5 or 6 years old, in a tattered dress with a broad red hem, part of which was torn and dragging in the dirt.  She would touch her heart and make hungry gestures.  She was duplicated a thousand times during the journey. the
palace, and his portraits and statues are everywhere. We went to a second palace by the airport.  It is surrounded by a lake which was created by diverting the Euphrates water which limited agricultural irrigation downstream.  His palace in Basra was used by him only once I am told.

Basra functions fairly well except for the power. There are 6 lines into the city, but it does not have a standard power grid.  Saddam used power and other essentials as a method of punishing a city of 3 million!  He would cut power for days to punish them. When I tell you the temperatures there, you will understand how bad that was.  I am told that in high summer, it will hit 155 degrees, even 160!  (Occhi Note: Hyperbole, perhaps?  Heat index or temperature???)  He has made no investments in this area which is overwhelmingly Shiite.  He has few friends there. Consequently, it is easier for the Brits to govern, unlike Baghdad.  And they are doing a good job of it. They are doing it at the moment by using pre-war personnel, perhaps contrary to Brenner's de-Bathification order.

The problem with Brenner's policy is that it removes almost all of the people who ran the country.  The Brits have been pragmatic:  they have largely left the judges and police in place and are removing them as they see the need and they are able to train and replace the bad ones.  That was our problem in Haiti, we trained a police force but did not put the
judiciary in place so that the jails just filled up and then overcrowding forced criminals out.  And the Haitian police have largely quit.  (Ouday had a solution to overcrowding, when he received a complaint of overcrowding, he went to the prison and personally shot every 3rd prisoner.)

We want to keep Iraq a secular state, and that will present some difficulties as there is no real concept of separation of church and state
in Islam. 

Attaturk was a true revolutionary where this was concerned. The  tribal and sahria (religious) courts are functioning, and if we don't get a move on, they will replace the civil and criminal courts. I find it difficult to explain how differently they think.  I remember telling Mike, "I don't think we are on the same page with this fellow."  Mike said, "Don, I am not sure we are in the same library."  For a large percentage of the Iraqi people, and they are most adamant, family and tribe are everything, religion and state are one and the same.  That they don't understand us is our biggest problem in the middle east. 

They perceive our way of life as a threat to theirs, and it is. 

They fear the modern world is about to run over them, destroying family life as they know it, educating and freeing their women, forbidding honor killing...coca colas, jeans, lack of parental respect and respect for the old ways and religion.  And to defend their way of life and their religion, they will die with the same fervor with which the Christians marched to the
lions.  In their fear of western life, some will fight and kill us; but I remain convinced that the majority want a secular society and the best that the west has to offer. We are not hated by everyone.  Of the hundreds I talked to, the overwhelming majority thanked us for being there.  Hundreds of adults and children on the roads waved and smiled as we passed by. We went to the law school with about 300 students, about ten of whom were female. 

There we were, three Americans and they wanted us to fix their school and they thought we could.  They thought Americans could do anything.  They were like children expecting the genie from the bottle to immediately gratify their The law students were the finest example of hope that I encountered.  They told me that the future was theirs and that they needed and wanted our help.  I believe we should be paying more attention and giving greater effort to restoring higher education.  These law students are the immediate future. 

When we met with them a week later, they had formed a protective association, a bus for transportation, found a disused grammar school for classes, and got their assistant dean to round up some professors who were teaching them.  Still they need help and I am trying to get some help for them from our law schools.  LSU has refused, Seton Hall and Rutgers have promised to help; I have not contacted Tulane, Loyola or Southern yet. 

Upon returning to Baghdad, I went to the Ministry of Justice to review the situation in the south.  I took advantage of the situation and said the following:  "I have read a little of your history.  I know you are a proud people who have risen from the ashes in the past, so I must tell you that I am saddened and disappointed.  I have talked to hundreds of you over the past five weeks, almost everyone educated and privileged.  What I have heard
is what you want from us, how the Americans have to fix this and give you money and equipment, protect you from you own.  The only adults planning on the future were those law students in Basra who had lost everything - their books, their desks, their records, their school.  And they were doing something about it on their own.  You need to do some of these things for yourselves.  If you are depending on us to do everything, you are going to
be sadly disappointed." 

I got a few nods from the judges, but the translator said to me:  "Thank you.  I have been waiting for someone to tell them that."

Our soldiers, God love them and keep them;  they smiled every time I got a chance to talk to them.  They want to come home, but I did not hear one word of complaint nor a
question as to why they were there. This is boring, HOT, dirty, and dangerous work.  They stand in 120 plus degrees in full body armor.  They are amazing.  Their entertainment was largely self-generated;  boredom doesn't stop when they stand down.  Write a letter, send a note or email; send a book, cd, tape, or magazine; do something.

Thank you.

[Occhidiangela]

The difference between theory and practice is profound.

Journalists aren't propagandists.

Bull. They are nowadays, sad to report, to one degree or another.

In theory, every journalist is objective, but every journalist is also human, and every editor has a PoV. With 24/7 news, news as entertainment, and the increasing number of news organs the variety of "slants and biases" presented at the editorial level multiplies. The good news, IMO, of the Information Age is that if one works hard enough at it, one can find varying slants and try to sift through them for a glimmering of fact, absent bias. Anything presented in the various forms of news media should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

That doesn't mean they have to abandon objectivity, just that they remember their role.

What a crock, the superstar reporter syndrome is the death blow to objectivity. Christian Amanpour never spent an objective day reporting news on CNN in her life. I suggest you look at Al Jaziera and Fox News, and try to tell me that a shred of objectivity exists in either place. Not every news organ has the standards of the CBC, or of a program like The National, and even those folks are not pristine.

I could name you a state where journalism consistently encouraged their troops, and their country's national standing. Here's a hint: in their language, it looks like "CCCP".

There was another nation like that, in about 1945, called Canada. And another called Great Britain. What is your point?

The press of the Free World, never stops raking muck, and in the U.S it is not an organ of The State. The muck raking and fact finding function does not require the demonization of the soldier that you seem to encourage with your comment, although I admit that I may be reading something into that. The biggest thing a free press is supposed to do is uncover the Truth, which is a most elusive, so uncovering as many facts as can be had is a good start.

How it is packaged is where it turns into propaganda, and in the race for ratings, packaging has become far more important. The distillation of complex problems into sound bytes does The Truth no favors, both in the world of officialdom and in the world of reportage. If you want to look at "buzz word covering up true intention" City, head to the East River in New York, a few blocks from Grand Central Station. (That is where the UN is headquartered.)

The more agenda a reporter and an editor brings to the table, the less total value his news holds, as it becomes a story more than news.

Your CCCP illustration forgets the fundamental nature of the official relationship between The State and the News Organs. That was as sloppy a shot as trying to play the Nazi card; you are generally much sharper than that.

Cheers. :D

[Haider]

Oh, Gallup is publishing a survey with numbers favourably to the US government. Normally I already take surveys with a keg of salt (you can get every result you want with the right methods), but with Gallups surveys all being extremly more positive to the government than that of other survey conductors the keg gets quite big.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I haven't heard any major western news source give any impression to the contrary. Both dissent and assent are regularly reported, from Fox News clear on through to the BBC.

Maybe Fox News is good about reporting positive things, but I don't get it so I can't wach it. When I get an Iraq update it is always about bombings, protests, soldier deaths, setbacks, and low troop moral. Visiting the web pages of big media sometimes yeilds some positive reporting, at the bottom of the page. Not an accurate conveyance of what is going on.

You, however, appeared to be taking a stance against people who report negative things, this "yellow journalism". Was I wrong in deducing this from your post?

Yes you were wrong. You ignored the sentance "When you seek to focus on only the good or the bad that is propaganda."

Of course, in the pursuit of truth, which is the job of a journalist, support for the troops and the international standing of one's country must always be left aside, since truth alone is the aim. Right?

That's right truth is the aim, all of it. Even what doesn't fit with their political feelings on the subject. This is not about directly supporting the troops, this is about accurate reporting. A journalist does not need to wear a flag pin but when things are selected and reported in a way that misrepresents the situation that is bad journalism. When it is done deliberately that is yellow journalism.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Journalists aren't propagandists.

Bull. They are nowadays, sad to report, to one degree or another.

I would argue when this happens they cease to be journalists. More like opinion commentators. :)

[kandrathe]

Normally I already take surveys with a keg of salt (you can get every result you want with the right methods), but with Gallups surveys all being extremly more positive to the government than that of other survey conductors the keg gets quite big.

Hmmm. Ok, so you think Gallup crafts their polls to skew them toward the positive? Or, is it that most of the other polls are skewed toward the negative? You are right that one should not just trust a poll at face value. One should know enough about statistics to review the sampling method, sample size, the questions asked, and the possible answers to see if the poll is biased. The simple fact is that well designed and accurately conducted polls actually do work as a method for predicting human attitudes and behavior.

The Gallup mission is to be non-partisan and non-biased -- there is a tremendous amount of peer review in their process and they make a point to not cater to any special interest. I guess of any research, I would feel better about an organization such as this one, rather than the XYZ partisan think tank, or one particular social scientists research results.

Then you get to the analysis, as we saw in the Washington Times article, how you choose to reveal the numbers can have a big impact on the tone of the message. And, then the #1 rule I remember from statistics -- Correlation does not indicate causality.