Times: Press ignoring good news, focusing on prison abuse

Do you guys read the news. This was widely reported.


82 percent of Iraqis oppose U.S. occupation

By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive
Most e-mailed articles

WASHINGTON — Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.
In the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the United States and allied militaries in Iraq.

Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available, "generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities in late March and early last month, before the surge in anti-coalition violence and the detainee-abuse scandal.

The findings appeared consistent with a poll taken about the same time by USA Today, CNN and Gallup, which found that 57 percent of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave immediately.

The new poll, which has not been released publicly, is a concern among occupation authority officials and in Washington, D.C., because the data provide evidence that the U.S. effort is not winning over Iraqi public opinion.

"How to ... win the hearts and minds of the people (in Iraq) is one of the things that we really have to work at," Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, head of Army intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. "I mean, that is the key to solving not only that problem but the rest of the problems in the Middle East."

Hamilton, who said he oversees public-opinion issues for Bremer, declined to provide the number of Iraqis surveyed or other methodological details but said in an e-mail that "polls here are generally reliable" and that the new findings were consistent with those of other polls.

The new data reflect the fact that "the occupation, and the occupation forces, are getting increasingly unpopular," said Jeffrey White, a former Middle East affairs analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency. "A lot of people, including me, have been getting very pessimistic."

Reflecting that trend, the proportion of Baghdad residents who reported worries about safety has increased steadily: 70 percent named security as the "most urgent issue," up from 50 percent in January, 60 percent in February and 65 percent in March.

Overall, 63 percent of those polled said security was the most urgent issue facing Iraq. In addition to Baghdad, the poll was conducted in the northern city of Mosul and the southern cities of Basra, Nasiriyah and Karbala. Some questions were asked in the troubled western Ramadi.

There were a few bright spots. Iraqi police received a 79 percent positive rating, the best of seven institutions about which questions were asked. The reformed Iraqi army was not far behind, with a 61 percent positive rating.

Those polled were broadly divided on who should appoint the interim government that is supposed to take over limited power at the end of next month. The largest group, 27 percent, said the Iraqi people should appoint the new leaders, while 23 percent said judges should. Only one-tenth of 1 percent said that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council should name the government, which is supposed to run Iraq until elections are held next year. None said the occupation authority should.

Indicating a general skepticism of foreign involvement in their political future, 83 percent of those polled said that only Iraqis should be involved in supervising the 2005 elections.

 

I was going to make the same post till I saw this...lol...

 

what gifford said.

And that poll was taken BEFORE the April rebellion and the prison photos.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

 

Why was the bad news about Saddam's Hussein's regime the only news that was important? How come we never heard about all of the good things that were happening in Iraq back then? The murder rate was much lower, school attendance was higher, blah blah blah blah.

This war was launched to win hearts and minds. It is not, it is in fact blowing them apart, and Iraqis are perceiving it as such. This perception does not come from them watching CNN.

By the way, has anybody noticed that the loudest voices in support of how 'great' things are going in Iraq generally consist of newspaper columnists sitting behind the computer relying on CPA press releases?

Why don't these guys actually go to Iraq to report firsthand if things are going so well...does it have anything to do with the fact that most non=essential personnel have pulled out of Iraq because it is considered too dangerous?

 

I think the only important news coming out of Iraq these days is bad news.

 

Wow Faos, you certainly have exhibited a talent in the last few weeks of making short-sighted, party line posts devoid of any independent thought. Keep up the good work.

 

The only news being reported out of Iraq is bad news. As the first post states, the military is doing good things in Iraq as well.

 

I think you are about the most narrow minded person on this board (just as bad as TJ only on the other side).

Do you realize you just defended Saddam?

 

Actually, does reading a coalition press release and writing an editorial count as reporting?

Reporting, in my definition, consists of generally gathering and presenting information on a series of events or transactions, and generally involves the reporter's physical presence in the locus of these events or transactions...yet most of the "reporters" telling us how well things are going are as comfortably ensconced behind a keyboard as I am.

Does the fact that Iraq is a chaotic, unsafe hellhole where pasty white reporters stand a good chance of getting kidnapped or killed have anything to do with this?

 

Bogey if the "good" things aren't being reported, how do you know they're happening?

 

LOL, the irony.

Like this?




No, in fact I didn't defend Saddam. Saddam was an evil man who the world is better without.

The point I made, that you missed, was that news reporting tends to always cover human tragedies regardless of who was in power.....I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

Sorry if I perceived this as being something that actually happened.

 

Thanks, GWB!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When you go to war due to bad information, are you to expect good news?

Oh, and by the way, the reason the media reports bad news more than good, is because bad news SELLS!

That's ridiculous. I support our troops 100%, and would rather have the prison thing not happen than it strengthening Kerry's chances to win the election.

 

The World doesn't revolve on a US Dem/GOP axis... the bad news over there are exactly the actions and events that will influence the religious/geopolitical landscape for years. If the bad news upsets you, vote for someone other then the folks who made the bad news possible, if not extremely likely.

 

I guess if SamFisher believes this statement then he probably voted for Bush.

 

Not sure what this means, do I have to go Tom Tomorrow on you and break out the happy bunny cartoon?

Or is this a Z-bomb moment?

Liberals, please help me. I lost the liberals manual for america hating and missed last weeks CF.net liberals meeting down at the labor union hall. I heard that Commissar MacBeth gave an excellent, if long winded, speech reminiscent of the one given at the Third Party Congress, and comrade RimRocker's borscht was excellent.

 

BTW, nice racially stereotyped comment.

 

I'll fax over the minutes. What's your number?

 

My fax is down, if you scan it you can email it to me though at Marxismrules@aol.com. Otherwise I guess I'll just borrow your copy when we go to Burning Man this summer, cool?