Study: Media Pushing Hard Against Iraq Attack

NewsMax ^ | 9/10/02 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Nearly three-quarters of the mainstream media's coverage of the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq has been negative, a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs has concluded.

"Coverage of the Bush administration's consideration of a military strike against Iraq has been 72 percent negative," the CMPA said on its Web site.

The study, which reviewed nightly network newscasts on CBS, NBC and ABC along with The New York Times front page from July 1st through August 25th - also found that a majority of Republican sources cited by those news organizations were critical of the administration's stance.

While the Times' coverage overall was negative 71 percent of the time, one network, ABC, portrayed plans to attack Iraq in a negative light in a full 80 percent of their reports.

NBC was a close second, going negative on Bush's prospective war plans in 76 percent of their reports.

CBS was actually the most balanced of the broadcast networks on the Iraq war question, with just 56 percent of their stories slanted negatively.

"The extent of the tilt is unusual," CMPA President Robert Lichter told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday.

"I really think it may reflect the concern of journalists that they are not hearing a real debate; that the Democrats are not speaking up for themselves," he explained.

[ThePythonicCow]

The extent of the tilt is unusual

Unusual which way -- I'd have guess that the major media slant was usually worse.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

real headline: commies push their poisoned agenda

[js1138]

I don't suppose any of the media jugheads have considered the possibility that Saddam might fall to an internal coup, just because we have massive support in the area and have promised to support a new government.

[blondee123]

Yesterday, there was a man on msnbc who had some authority & knowledge about the WMD in Iraq, he was very much in favor of taking saddam out & guess what, MSNBC cut him off REALLY FAST! No media bias, naw!!! Never have seen it! Naw!

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I'd have guess that the major media slant was usually worse.

How is it worse?

[Billy_bob_bob]

Well, that settles it. If the media is again' it, I'm fer it. Bombs away! Say goodnight, Saddam.

[Shermy]

It's been completely a media-orchestrated pseudo-debate. I bet a rash of Saudi money and talking points agitprop has fueled it.

[okie01]

"I really think it may reflect the concern of journalists that they are not hearing a real debate; that the Democrats are not speaking up for themselves," he explained.

Hardly. The media has figured out that, in a War on Iraq, the biggest losers would be...the Democrats.

The Democrats have figured it out, too. Thus, the media is carrying their water -- trying to build political resistance to the war, without the Democrats having to commit themselves.

In this regard, the mainstream media has shown themselves to be more shamelessly political than ever. National security is of no consideration, only the liberal agenda...

[cinFLA]

Not in the study? Sac BEE 96% negative.

[ImphClinton]

Yea their Go To man the infamous Scot Ridder was on aCNN excliusive Live from his employers home in Bagdad.

The the networks are finding it had to find people who don't support taking out Sadam.

Monday they were even trying to lie and say none of the DemocRATS were against the war. Right they even showed some footage of their 98 pro war statements. Rush really nailed them on it. Today back to against the war.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Yesterday, there was a man on msnbc who had some authority & knowledge about the WMD in Iraq, he was very much in favor of taking saddam out & guess what, MSNBC cut him off REALLY FAST!

Did Donahue make a special appearance on the next segment? [His eyes wide open in perpetual fear.]