When asked about whether the "news" channel had managed to shape the agenda in the lead up to the Iraq war, Rupert Murdoch, said "No I don't think so. We tried." [emphasis added]
So we should not be surprised when the Murdoch owned New York Post publishes a front page story about a new poll showing a new found support for dubya's war. The headline even reads:
The story outlines a new poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a polling company that describes itself in this press release as a "Republican Polling Firm." The poll itself was commissioned by a PR firm in Chattanooga, TN called "The Moriah Group. Here is their press release about the poll.
AMERICA SAYS LET'S WIN WAR
There's something fishy going on here. Take a look at the first two paragraphs of the Moriah press release:
It says the poll was conducted from the 5th to the 7th of February. But the House Resolution was passed on the 16th of February a little more than a week later. How can that be "in the wake of"? How long does it take to crunch the numbers? Surely not more than a week. And if this info was available, why not release it BEFORE the vote on the 16th?
In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.
The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.
And further, if this poll was an accurate of the electorage before the House vote, then where was the outcry after the House voted?
Something fishy there.
And then there's the poll itself. Gary Sargent found something very interesting by asking another pollster - a republican pollster:
The pollster, David Johnson, the CEO of the GOP firm Strategic Vision, tells me that some of the key questions were leading and designed to elicit the answers they got.For instance:
So let's see what we have. Rupert Murdoch, who admitted that his "news" channel tried to sway the national mood in favor of the war in Iraq, publishes in his New York Post an article about a "new" poll conducted more than a week before the House Resolution condemning dubya's escalation in Iraq and the questions, according to another Republican pollster were (no surprise here) designed to get pre-ordained responses.
The first finding -- that 57 % support "finishing the job" -- is based on asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” What does Johnson, the pollster I spoke to, think about this question?
"It's designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support `finishing a job,'" Johnson says. "It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response."
Yea, that's news.