December 2005 poll by Oxford Research

[Jim]

The Oxford Research Group was critical of Bush's war plans and was commissioned by ABC, BBC and Der Spiegle:

 

Here are some selected findings:

 

70.6% said "very good" or "quite good" when asked: "Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days – very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?"

 

51.5% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "Compared to the time before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?"

 

64.2% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "What is your expectation for how things overall in your life will be in a year from now? Will they be much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?"

 

68.6% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "What is your expectation for how things will be for Iraq as a country overall a year from now?"

 

5.7% said "American forces leaving Iraq" when asked: "Thinking ahead to the next 12 months, what would be the best thing which could happen to Iraq?"

 

2.2% listed "Terrorist Attacks" when asked: "What is the single biggest problem you are facing in your life these days?"

 

Now, guess who published this report when it was issued?

[Jim]

There are negatives in this poll to be sure. I question why this poll isn't front and center in the national debate.

[Skye]

Actually I find the low number of people who think that American forces should leave Iraq within 12 months to be somewhat pessimistic in regards the ability of Iraq to get itself sorted in that time. It's better than wanting to pull out regardless though.

There are negatives in this poll to be sure. I question why this poll isn't front and center in the national debate.

Blame Bush! I think this is the interesting thing with Iraq, as bad as it seems for Bush it's one of his strong points. So he keeps coming back to it. He sort of got scared away from campaigning on the economy after the economy dived in his first term, but it's picked up again and seems, from here anyway, that Bush isn't really campaigning on it. There's too much negativity about trade with China and outsourcing from special interests, they need to be reigned in because you really need another of the big policy areas to campaign on other than defence.

[Jim]

Actually I find the low number of people who think that American forces should leave Iraq within 12 months to be somewhat pessimistic in regards the ability of Iraq to get itself sorted in that time. It's better than wanting to pull out regardless though.

 

Maybe it is negative but it appears to agree with administration policy. My overall take on the poll is that Iraqi's are suprisingly upbeat about their own situation although they disagree about the future of the country.

 

From the MSM reports the only thing happening in Iraq is terrorist attacks yet that is not the largest concern of most Iraqis. The coverage has been unbalanced and, worse, has created an incentive for the "insurgents" to feed the press with blood for more ink.

 

 

Blame Bush! I think this is the interesting thing with Iraq, as bad as it seems for Bush it's one of his strong points. So he keeps coming back to it. He sort of got scared away from campaigning on the economy after the economy dived in his first term, but it's picked up again and seems, from here anyway, that Bush isn't really campaigning on it. There's too much negativity about trade with China and outsourcing from special interests, they need to be reigned in because you really need another of the big policy areas to campaign on other than defence.

 

Have you considered the possibility that Bush is sincere in advocating a stay the course policy? I believe he belatedly came back to Iraq after getting savaged in the press and leaving the field far too long to the critics.

[Skye]

Maybe it is negative but it appears to agree with administration policy. My overall take on the poll is that Iraqi's are suprisingly upbeat about their own situation although they disagree about the future of the country.

 

From the MSM reports the only thing happening in Iraq is terrorist attacks yet that is not the largest concern of most Iraqis. The coverage has been unbalanced and, worse, has created an incentive for the "insurgents" to feed the press with blood for more ink.

I agree in principle, but here's a contrary perception, in spite of the media insurgents have moved away from abductions and beheadings to some extent. The major attack has been the bombing of the golden mosque. Ok, this got a fair amount of foreign media attention, but it would seem to be aimed much more at Shia than at foreign media.

Have you considered the possibility that Bush is sincere in advocating a stay the course policy? I believe he belatedly came back to Iraq after getting savaged in the press and leaving the field far too long to the critics.

I'm sure he's sincere, and I'm not suggesting he leave Iraq alone. I was saying he could do more to shift attention to other areas. It was fairly light-hearted.

[pcs]

From the MSM reports the only thing happening in Iraq is terrorist attacks yet that is not the largest concern of most Iraqis. The coverage has been unbalanced and, worse, has created an incentive for the "insurgents" to feed the press with blood for more ink.

 

Well, the disconnect between MSM reporting and the reality on the ground has a less nefarious explanation. Most MSM journalists recycle unit public affairs media releases from secure enclaves in major cities, and those media releases generally deal with violent acts. Local news and embeds, on the other hand, generally have a far wider range of contact (geographically) that helps to percolate stories other than those dealing with friendly or enemy casualties.

 

Essentially what we have here is a well established process which already provides MSM with a select set of data points supporting the popular (and dour) view of Iraq's security and reconstruction prospects.

[pcs]

I'm sure he's sincere, and I'm not suggesting he leave Iraq alone. I was saying he could do more to shift attention to other areas. It was fairly light-hearted.

 

What tangible meaning is there behind these "attention" and "focus" criticisms? They come across as very shallow.

[Jim]

Well' date=' the disconnect between MSM reporting and the reality on the ground has a less nefarious explanation. Most MSM journalists recycle unit public affairs media releases from secure enclaves in major cities, and those media releases generally deal with violent acts. Local news and embeds, on the other hand, generally have a far wider range of contact (geographically) that helps to percolate stories other than those dealing with friendly or enemy casualties.

 

Essentially what we have here is a well established process which already provides MSM with a select set of data points supporting the popular (and dour) view of Iraq's security and reconstruction prospects.[/quote']

 

I do not recall opining as to the cause of the the disconnect or characterizing that cause as being due to any nefarious characteristic of journalists. Possibly, it has to do merely with a limited set of data points as much as with the viewpoint of the journalist. There is nothing nefarious in a person slanting information to support their own views. I've never known a person who hasn't done this in some form, present company included.