New York Times Blames Data 'Overload,' 'Compassion Fatigue,' and Basketball for Obama's Low Libya Ratings
Sunday’s New York Times's National section led off with Kirk Johnson's “Inundated With News, Many Find It Difficult To Keep Up on Libya,” which dug up some novel excuses for the public’s resistance to Obama’s war in Libya (a Gallup poll shows only 47% approve of the bombing strikes): Information “overload,” “compassion fatigue,” and the NCAA basketball tournament.
Denver Bureau Chief Johnson, whose reporting has a pro-Democratic slant, blamed the findings in part on “compassion fatigue.” That itself is a leading description -- would the Times have ever suggested Bush’s involvement in Iraq was borne out of “compassion” for innocent Iraqis?
In the case of a war waged by Obama, the Times ignores other reasons why the public could be skeptical: Fears of mission creep, questions about exit strategies, and concerns about the wisdom of choosing sides in a civil war. Instead, Johnson faults information overload. The inference? The public would be showing more support Obama’s war if they weren’t so distracted by the Japan earthquake and the NCAA basketball tournament.
Many Americans find themselves scratching their heads about America’s military intervention in Libya, and part of the reason, they say, can be summed up in one word: overload.
People interviewed across four states said that at a time when the world seems to stagger from one breathtaking news event to another -- rolling turmoil across the Middle East, economic troubles at home, disaster upon disaster in Japan -- the airstrikes on military targets in Libya can feel like one crisis too many.
“Other headlines, other news,” said Bob Britt, 70, a retired computer support manager, summing up the distractions as he watched a bank of television screens in the lobby of a Denver office building during his lunch break from jury duty.
Or maybe it is compassion fatigue.
....
In a Gallup poll released on Monday, 47 percent of respondents said they approved of bombing strikes against the military government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya.
Support for military action usually surges in the early days of a conflict, but this was the weakest level of enthusiasm for any of the 10 United States military actions on which the Gallup Organization has sought public opinion in nearly three decades. It was also the highest proportion of people with no opinion, at 16 percent.
A survey by the Pew Research Center -- conducted partly before and partly after the bombing raids on Libya began on March 19 -- found that only 5 percent of respondents were following the events “very closely.” Fifty-seven percent said they were closely following the news about Japan.
The Times leaned against Gallup’s findings with three captioned photos of Times interviewees. Two of the three supported the war, and the other one lamented his inability to follow the news:
“I’m happy that the U.S. is supporting, is backing everything up. I really am. Someone has to step in, someone has to take a stand. I’m glad that’s us. And we’re not just sitting back, passive.” -- Roxanne Hancock, 50.
“One day it’s this story, and then, oh, more information comes out -- if there was one or two things going on, it would probably be easier to get caught up.” -- Kevin Kilgore, 34.
“I feel like the U.S. is kind of trying to -- at least the Obama administration is trying to -- stop or prevent another Afghanistan situation.” -- Zena Fares, 22.
More excuses:
Some people said they had opinions and conclusions about Libya, but they worried that they were not getting enough information from news organizations to make those judgments feel sound. Some painted dark conspiracies about information being withheld; others cheerfully admitted that they were paying more attention to the college basketball tournament than to the no-fly zone over Libya.
Couldn’t the basketball accusation be leveled against Obama himself, at least in terms of how much time he’s spent on national television explaining his position? Obama has spent ten minutes on ESPN discussing his NCAA basketball pool, compared to zero minutes on national television discussing the bombing of Libya (he is scheduled to address the nation on the matter tonight).
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
A question no one has really asked
Submitted by Prester John on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:25pm.
If, in fact ,this was all about saving civilians in Benghazi, can anyone honestly say that the UK and France couldn't have take care of the Libya ground/air forces that were moving into the city as well as creating a reasonably effective NFZ?
Would the UK and France need US satellite imagery and signals intel? Of course, fine, give it to them, and wish them good luck, but what does launching 160 or so cruise missiles and demolishing Libya's air defense sites all around that country have to do with civilians in Benghazi?
"No limited scope, limited time military actions for European oil!!"
Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com
Wait!!
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:25pm.
You forgot to blame Bush and global warming!!
Maybe "road to RIO" distraction with NO Hope and Norm Crosby?
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:29pm.
The NCAA distraction, does he mean Oblunder and his distraction?
Or is it more about the messaging?
Nope, nope, this writer is stating that we are to stupid to concentrate on more than one thing.
Wrong Tom, it is Palin's fault and Fox news.
What Kirk Johnson is really saying is that we, the great...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:51pm.
...unwashed who reside outside the boundries of Know-It-All New York, are too stoopid to understand the subtle nuances and complexities of Obama sending our military to aid AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood in ousting a milquetoast Muslim who hasn't really bothered us for over two decades now.
Even the most avid American Idol watcher can figure this one out.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Kirk Johnson = desperate Obama cheerleader
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:03pm.
Kirk Johnson = desperate Obama cheerleader
Not suprising!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:06pm.
Although a real problem, I don’t believe this has anything to do with “Information Overload” on the part of the average citizen. No, it seems more of a self induced problem on the medias part.
The heart of the matter is that Obama is a failure on every presidential level and that every policy he endorses or creates winds-up making the situation worse. There is no "positive" news to report about Obama or his administration!
The media must therefore spend an inordinate amount of time (and ink) running cover and propping-up for this self created delusion of a “competent administration.” The MSM is in “Damn the torpedoes! - Full speed ahead” mode to find other excuses for the incompetence… If that includes blaming and insulting the American public by highlighting the opinions of a few dimwits while failing to report the facts accurately – then that is what they will do.
However, we should not be surprised.
Barrys depressed,,
Submitted by brutony1 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:29pm.
he has NO more teams in his tournament bracket, i mean, BARACKit! That upsets him more than the killings happening based on his dithering and silence and planned vacations, no matter what happens!
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
It's because the American people ain't buyin' it
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:11pm.
Obama's supporters have insisted that this is a "humanitarian" intervention, but we're not delivering food or medicine to a degree significant enough to warrant media attention.
And Administration claims of tens of thousands of "lives saved" is just more unsubstantiated crap similar to the "millions of jobs saved" by the Obama stimulus act. This is where the WH's proliferation of hype and BS has created an atmosphere where the public generally tunes out claims of 'good news' because they've been numbed by it.
The MSM is focused on the delivery of "kinetic military action" (most reporters want to be war correspondents -- it looks good on their resumes), and so it's readily apparent to viewers that this operation is about siding with one of the belligerents in an Arab civil war. For all we know at this point, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to deliver Libya from Qaddafi to al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hard to see the "compassion" in that.
Oh, YES! The NYT gives Obama
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:59pm.
Oh, YES! The NYT gives Obama his Cindy Sheehan moment. Props to the NYT.
Typical liberal, whining that no one is giving the proper attention to me, (jumping up and down) ME, ME, ME! Remember Cindy's inglorious epiphany that everyone was paying more attention to the victims of Hurricane Katrina instead of her?
And just so to counter the inevitable spin that Obama didn't personally make that claim, even though Rahm Emanuel isn't the one having the daily conference calls to synchronize the MSM narrative, SOME ELSE IS!
Data Overload
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:26pm.
That means the people know too much.
Who's Overloaded???
Submitted by bmac32 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:52pm.
I believe Obama is the one overloaded and he's been that way since day one!
Now I'm overloaded, what are they trying to sneak under the cover of Libya???
Yes
Submitted by StarAZ on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:04pm.
I wonder what we are NOT supposed to look at with all this. As for compassion fatigue, somehow I, at least, do not see possible AQ racing across the desert with us (OK, NATO, same diff) runnning interference as "saving" anyone. Of course, I can't prove they didn't--and they can't prove they did. The guy did trash-talk...and he is capable of killing people by the batches...but this is speculation... Why is this our problem? Why is this always our problem?
I believe "Obama Fatigue" is
Submitted by sergeant stogie on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:03pm.
I believe "Obama Fatigue" is the preferred nomenclature. I'm just flat-out tired of this unqualified clown being referred to as our president.
Actually with voters the most
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:18pm.
Actually with voters the most apt term is "buyer's remorse."