Polls show Americans are 'confused'

I am unaware of any admitted malfeasance. If you are aware of an admission of which I am unaware, I would be happy to have you cite same here. (If you'd prefer not to support your claim, I'm okay with that too.)

I doubt you could show us ONE.

By now you've clicked on the link that started this thread, which finds that a third of Americans mistakenly believe that WMDs were found in Iraq, and about 22 percent think Iraq actually used WMDs during the war.

Sounds bad, right? At first glance I was apoplectic too. But I've had some time to put the figures in perspective, courtesy of a visit over to www.PollingReport.com, where I pulled out a few numbers, all from recent major polls, just for fun:

Of American adults, at least 18 years of age:

65% couldn't describe the basic facts about Watergate
56% think in war, the media should support the government over questioning it
48% say the news media acted responsibly during the Clinton Wars
45% characterized Watergate was "just politics"
43% attended religious services in the previous 7 days
40% believe the media was biased in favor of Bill Clinton
35% say the government should not fund stem cell research
34% think Rock and Roll has had an overall negative impact on America
33% believe a wife should "submit herself graciously" to a husband
30% say the Bible is the "actual word of God" to be taken literally
29% think people will be "more likely" to afford college for their kids in 2020
28% disapprove of labor unions on principle
28% say the government should have the right to control news reports
27% believe divorce is "morally wrong"
26% thought various disasters in 1999 might "foreshadow the wrath of God"
26% think grade-school teachers should be allowed to spank their kids
24% describe themselves as interested in what celebrities think
21% told a pollster they'd never met that they had cheated in a relationship
21% say justice was served in the O.J. Simpson case
20% approve of how the Catholic Church handles pedophilia
20% believe that the killing of civilians in Vietnam was "relatively rare"
15% were upset at Diana Spencer's death like "someone you knew"
12% think the United States should have a British-style royal family
11% stockpiled food and water in advance of Y2K
11% think "Titanic" was the best American movie of the 20th century
11% would like "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" as their personal physician
10% would eat a rat or an insect on a "reality" TV show
10% think it's advantageous to be a woman in American society
10% believe Oswald acted alone
10% say they are "very likely" to become rich someday
8% could not name a single TV network
8% fear they are "very likely" to be shot or badly hurt by a stranger
7% think Elvis is possibly still alive
6% say Garth Brooks is the best male singer of the 20th century
5% are 'very afraid' of thunder and lightning
5% would be "more likely" to buy food labeled as genetically modified
3% wanted to see the questions on "Millionaire" become less difficult

Sooooooo... what to make of all this?

1) A sizeable percentage of Americans will say pretty much the damndest thing you can imagine.

2) Looking at the other opinions floating around 20 percent, I'd say that the extent of lunatic public perception of WMDs is, if anything, surprisingly low, given the constant drumbeat of bullshit coming out of the White House and megaphoned by the press for much of the past year.

3) About the same number of people who think it's an advantage to be a woman in America would eat a rat on live TV. Clearly, we've got some work to do on the whole gender-equality thing.

4) Speaking of social progress, there sure seems to be a remarkably consistent hardcore of about 25-30 percent who seem to be living sometime in the late 19th century at best. Beatings as a form of education? Wives 'submitting graciously'? Vengeful gods influencing the weather?

So one-third of Americans mistakenly think we found WMDs? Greattt. We can work with that. After looking at these numbers, I'm just relieved 30 percent don't think Saddam's disembodied spectre is looming in a vengeful stormfront, ready to deflower the womenfolk, lead our children into Satan's bosom, and force the men to read science books.

That's just silly.


Science books. Sheesh.

You know, when i was a young hippie, and didn't mind the odd beating or slapping around, i would quote passages of the constitution to cops who tried to make me "move along," or otherwise wished to rid their community of someone "dirty" like me. (Of course, it did not matter to what extend you assured your personal cleanliness, it was the perception of an image, and not of another human being.) This would infuriate them. Since i never prefaced such remarks with a statement such as "the first amendment reads . . ." i was often regaled with their obscenity laden opinions of my commie opinions, just before they resorted to physical force. Demonstrations used to be a lot of fun, but i'm too old, fat and lazy for that now.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea that voter turnout is so low, after all...

PDiddie! Sssssstoooooppppp! Hmmmmm, maybe Beth with sponser me as a canehdian immegrant.

Me first . . . you get in line, girl . . .

damn....

Just tell them you're seeking asylum from domestic abuse, 'k. At least, that used to be enough to get you in. Things may be different now (especially since you're not allowed to enter the country if you've been convicted of any crime in the U.S., including some that may not be crimes in Canada in the not-too-distant future...).

Never been convicted of nothing! As for the claim of domestic abuse - wouldn't there have to be any kind of evidence? Domestic affairs abuse! I guess what Bush et al are doing to our rights could be considered domestic abuse.....?

Dunno. I do live within spitting distance of the place, and some folks around here have told me that, once upon a time (if not now) emigrating to Canada was very easy. Given the influx of immigrants into Great White North over the past decade or so, though, this is probably no longer the case.

I know there's a heavier fee, than there once was, to go through the process of becoming a citizen

I'm a little late responding, but was shocked (SHOCKED) to read the Sunday papers articles on this. The worst, I thought, was that more than 22% thought the Iraqis had used WMD or Chemical weapons in the most recent conflict. Do they even know what these weapons are??

Anyway, I went to the website of the pollsters, the Program on International Policy Attitudes or PIPA. If you go to that link it has the full press release (not the watered down version most of us read in our papers) and the complete poll.

http://www.pipa.org/

Here's an oddity... (bolding mine) Is this what Rush is telling 'em?

The questions at the end pinpoint the ages and other statistical data about the people who were polled, definitely not just college students.

The best news I could find was that 56% of these folks didn't vote in the last election. (whew)

Scrat,



One?

With thanks to Timber:



Report was filed by embedded AP journalist and published in the Jerusalem Post, to then do the rounds on the various (US and world) media. For example, FOX News headlined the story the next day in this way:



A day later again, however, CBS News, for example, presented the "news" about how the earlier "news" had been off-target, headlining:



And on it went like this ... you know this, too, Scrat. Every week it seemed there was Important New Information in, as Acquiunk says, "numerous new articles and reports that WMD have been found". They always did include the caveat in small print that it was not yet wholly certain, of course, but, the reporter or Pentagon official would assert, this looks like it really could be the smoking gun! Only for "news" that the gun was in fact more like a funnily shaped treebranch to follow the next day, week or month.

Call these cycles of reporting, "hypes". From day one, in the last paragraph of the story above, for example, you could find a UN official saying something along the lines of (this from CNN): "U.N. weapons inspection spokesman Ewen Buchanan said the inspectors are 'not aware of a large scale chemical weapons facility near Najaf.' 'But Iraq clearly has a large number of dual-use chemical facilities related to its petrochemical industry, which were being investigated prior to withdrawal of the inspectors,' Buchanan said." I.e., the "huge" new discovery could have been recognized as a probable non-issue from the beginning - but that would not have yielded such a well-selling story.

The thing about this is, if you give people enough smoke, they will start believing there must be a fire, in the end. So I'm not surprised at all at the opinion poll outcome. In that sense the government shared a common interest with the scoop-seeking journalists in blowing "new discoveries" like these out of proportion.

But that carries grave long-term risks. In general, that of engendering cynicism about both the government and the media. Specifically, that of disinvolving the viewers/readers from the topic altogether. To read scoops and partial retractions about ever more detailed and technical revelations will bore the reader, will make him feel there's no use in following the story, because there's no way of cutting through the fog anyway. It's the quickest way of making people lose their sense of commitment about what happens in/with Iraq.

What sticks, from the barrage of reporting like in the examples above, is for the average viewer, depending on his outlook, one of two impressions: "they did find something, sometime, didnt they? I dont remember the details, but I remember reading they found something, it sounded pretty impressive"; or, "I think they all just be lyin', today it's this, tomorrow the opposite again, who can you still trust?" Neither of these reactions is what you call a reassuring reflection of a fair, transparent and complete reporting of facts by government and journalists. And neither, to hold it up to another ideal-image, holds much promise for a sense of involvement in global issues and trust in government among empowered citizens.

updated post above

no wmd have ever been found.

bush a goddamned lying sack of dog $hit

however, those who dictate the news require that at the least, this information is couched in terms such that the bush administration is not made to look like the liars they are.

with all the money that GE gets from the government, do you think that GE will allow NBC to prove bush a liar by informing the public of the truth?

come on. the media manuafactures consent for the benefit of those who run the country. its the only way these sons-a-bitches could ever get away with stating such blatant lies.

the US sent into iraq special forces (delta) weeks before the attacks started and scoured the country looking to kidnap scientists, identifying weapons programs, and weapons sites. they kidnapped scientists, who told them nothing, they found no weapons sites, AT ALL.

it has been two months now and the only alibi that the weasels at dod and state use is that iraq is as big as california. the point is that were there weapons programs and storage sites, there would be hundreds if not thousands of workers employed at those sites, and not a single person has come forward to tell the americans where they are.

what sticks in my craw is the absolute gooberism on the right who still demand that anyone who doesn't believe bush is a traitor to the country. on the contrary, it is bush who is a traitor who sent brave americans to fight for a lie.

these are the same drooling idiots who still profess divine knowledge that hillary clinton had vince forster murdered, without a shred of evidence.

the point is that bush lied, our soldiers dead for a lie, and it doen't seem to matter to these people. these are the same people who now think the war in iraq is over.

that we will have nearly one half of our land armies in iraq and kuwait for the forseeable future doe not seem to even register with them.

it does not seem to register with them that rumsfield, who i believe is absolutely a war crimial who should be tried, convicted and shot thru the heart repreimanded the US cheif of staff, general shineski for telling congress that the americans would need "several hundred of thousand" american troops to be in iraq indefinitely.

even now the US military planners tell congress that iraq is a worse situation than bosnia and the american army has been in bosnia for nearly 8 years. and still these forrest gumps think we won. but won what? we cant even find bin laden and its been 18 months since we went into afghanistan. the situation there is a mess, karzi cant leave his capital, war lords run the country, the poppy crop, which the taliban had essentiually eradicated is called the largest in history in afghanistan, and if you ask any cop on the beat in urban areas in the US he will tell you that the street price of heroin is the lowest in years. this is the victory we secured in afghanistan. i expect a comparable victory in iraq.

Kuvasz:
Kudos.

Always love it when Kuvasz goes off.

Pifka - Do you consider the banned missiles they have found to be "weapons of mass destruction" in this context? Perhaps you don't, but perhaps some do. Likewise the trailers that have been so debated may constitute the discovery of WOMDs to some. While the question on whether Iraq used chem or bio agents in the war clearly shows people who don't know what the hell is going on, I tend to think this question was poorly worded and open to interpretation. It would have been easy, and useful, to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" for the purposes of the poll. Had they done so, I suspect the responses would have been different.