CBS’s Couric to Petraeus: ‘How Frustrated Are You?’

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
By Kyle Drennen | April 11, 2008 - 16:06 ET

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterOn Thursday’s CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric teased an upcoming interview with General David Petraues: "Also tonight, General David Petraeus on the slow progress in Iraq." Couric later began the interview by asking Petraeus: "How frustrated are you?"

Prior to asking about Iranian influence in Iraq, Couric offered this pessimistic observation: "There's been a spike in attacks against Americans recently. Sixteen combat deaths this month. April is on track to be the deadliest month since September." Couric went on to describe the latest effort by Iraqi security forces to combat militias in Basra: "Last month the Iraqi army surprised the United States by attacking militant strongholds in the southern city of Basra. The operation was poorly planned. Some Iraqi troops stopped fighting, and ultimately US air power had to be sent in to back the Iraqis."

Couric then concluded the interview by citing the latest poll numbers: "Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly -- more than half, obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

This interview was not the first time Couric wondered about the "frustrations" of leaders with regard to Iraq. In June of 2005, while still a co-host of NBC’s "Today," Couric asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "It must be very frustrating at times to see things unraveling so." One wonders if Couric herself is ever frustrated about her lack of ratings. From the latest news that she may soon be leaving the "Evening News" it appears that CBS is quite frustrated.

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

6:30PM TEASER:

KATIE COURIC: Also tonight, General David Petraeus on the slow progress in Iraq. How frustrated are you?

DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, we are frustrated. But we have enormous national interest in trying to get this as right as we can.

6:37PM SEGMENT:

KATIE COURIC: Meanwhile, General Petraeus insists the US effort in Iraq is moving in the right direction. I spoke with him today at the Newseum, a high-tech museum of journalism in Washington, DC, that opens to the public tomorrow, this following his two grueling days of testimony on Capitol Hill about the pace of progress in Iraq. How frustrated are you?

DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, we are frustrated. But we have enormous national interests in trying to get this as right as we can, and that's what keeps us pushing forward, obviously.

COURIC: There's been a spike in attacks against Americans recently. Sixteen combat deaths this month. April is on track to be the deadliest month since September. You told Congress yesterday that you had evidence ready to show that Iran is supporting the recent violence. What role specifically are they playing and where is the evidence?

PETRAEUS: Well, the evidence is in the videotapes of interrogation of detainees who were trained, equipped, paid by the Iranian Quds Force and, in some cases, directed by them as well. The evidence is in the form of rocket fragments, in some cases; in some cases entire rockets that we have captured in weapons cashes or interdicted. So there is -- this is not about intelligence. This is about evidence.

COURIC: Last month the Iraqi army surprised the United States by attacking militant strongholds in the southern city of Basra. The operation was poorly planned. Some Iraqi troops stopped fighting, and ultimately US air power had to be sent in to back the Iraqis. But to Petraeus, the important thing is that Iraq's prime minister decided to fight.

PETRAEUS: Look, this was a sovereign prime minister of a sovereign country. We have been after him to make tough decisions for years. He made a tough decision. He moved out. There clearly are areas in which this could have been done better. We're not bashful, any of us, nor is he.

COURIC: Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly -- more than half, obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?

PETRAEUS: The fact that there has been progress, that the trajectory, which was down really 15, 18 months ago, maybe even nine or 10 months ago, in our view, has been one that has been in an upward slope. It's never as fast as we would like, but ultimately you have to leave that to the American people who have to be the judge ultimately, who have to weigh all the different consequences along with, of course, our leaders.

COURIC: And General Petraeus also revealed for the first time today that he's been engaged in secret diplomatic efforts. In recent months, he's quietly visited several Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, hoping to convince those governments to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not Just the News

In the best Valley Girl tradition, Katie just doesn't want to give us the news, she wants to tell us how to feel.  

Fortunately for Katie, a man who has seen combat can keep his cool around insanity.

COURIC: "How can you

COURIC: "How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?"

PATRAEUS: "I could ask the same thing of you, honey."

One to talk!

Katie, you're about to be let go from See-BS.
You must feel some level of frustration!
How frustrated are you?!??!

 

Couric: "How frustrated are

Couric: "How frustrated are you?"

BD:  With poor reporting?  Very....  How about you?

And Why Do Americans Think It's going Badly?

Gee Katie, do you think that your daily bad news or no good news about Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the results of your survey? 

Guess it's nice to see that your audience takes notes on how BADLY things are going so when you call to ask what theythink you get the answer you're looking for!

 You go GIRL! 

That the number is only 54%

That the number is only 54% says something positive about American society's resolve, and we haven't been very well-known for our resolve for some time since we became a microwave, feel-good society.

It says something positive, because of the massive amount of effort the press has put into bombarding us with negative thoughts about Iraq War II even before it began -- all the way back to before it even started to look like war was likely.

I've heard that even in the Vietnam War era, the press was behind the White House and military in the early stages and only grew to being dead set against the war later on.

That is a far, far cry from the press coverage in the Bush Jr. era. They couldn't even give the US military and Bush (and the American people) one full day to feel good about something the day Saddam's statue was pulled down as Baghdad fell before they started ripping into the effort with something as bleeping absurd as looting. They couldn't even give us 24 hours without pounding us with doom-n-gloom.

So, even with the press norm of trying to magnify 16 combat deaths into the storming of the beaches at Normandy.....only 54% of Americans are not pleased with how the aftermath-of-the-war is going? Goody. American society has some resolve left!!

The anti-war movies Hollywood churned out have flopped. Goody.

There are no massive (violent) protests in city after city - like during the Vietnam Era. Goody.

I guess the press will just have to try much harder.....

Especially since we keep ignoring them more and more and more...

Alfred E. Newseum

"I spoke with him today at the Newseum, a high-tech museum of journalism in Washington, DC..."

The Newseum named in honor of that pioneer of modern news-shaping, Alfred E. Newseum.  

What we wish Gen. Petraeus

What we wish Gen. Petraeus would have said when asked:

"Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly -- more than half, obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?"

We can sustain the effort just fine if you media libs would keep your pie holes shut. As long you keep fostering the perception that America can't win this, our enemies are more than willing to remain patient until the war of words achieves its objective. It would be helpful if you and your colleagues in the MsM would take the side of your country instead of siding with the enemy.

 

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

Thats the problem...

 you and your colleagues in the MsM would take the side of your country

See, this is the big problem.  You think people in the media should "take a side." 

Again, if you're going to cirtique journalists, fine.  But, have an understanding of a journalists job.

Which, in part, is to never, ever take anyone's side.  You simply report the story and ask the questions.

When a journalist "takes a side," - no matter who's side they take - they cease being a journalist.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

curator

they always take a side

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

According to you.

You think they take a side.   

You, whom I assume are not a journalist believe they take a side.

I liken it to people believe hockey referees take a side while they are working a game.

The referee will never be able to prove to the viewers they are neutral... and the arguments will always be there from the fans of the team (politicians) they think are being wronged.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

just like you do curator

you take sides

unless that is you don't think i'm wrong?

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

That correlation doesn't fit

OK, when I say, "take sides" I was refering to (which was fairly well apparant) alleged journalism bias.

And you want to counter that by saying I "take sides" because I don't believe journalists "take sides?"

Yeah, that's a little too much of a Seinfeld episode to try and make sense of. 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

alrightty then curator

our side:  you can tell by their actions that there are good and bad nations/groups and honest journalism will report such

their side:  all 'sides' have equal validity and must be reported that way

curator:  they don't take sides

botg:  you don't even understand the debate, the basis of the liberal bias is their embacing 'moral relativism' as true and reporting that way

curator

above may be the question in another form?

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

curator: You're

curator: You're generalizing. The point of this site is to expose the fact that the MsM is blatantly liberal in the way it reports the news. They are not journalists according to your definition. They purport to report the news, but they routinely edit themselves in what news and how much news is reported. Do you believe that what you define as pure journalism should allow for sins of omission? They routinely report stories without fully vetting them and mostly don't bother to issue apologies or corrections as the true facts emerge, especially if the story involves the Bush administration, the Republican party, Conservatives, the Catholic Church, Fundamentalist Christians, or the U.S. military.

Finally, I'd say that it is the job of American journalists to fairly report the news in a manner that at the least gives their own country the benefit of the doubt.

 

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

the curator

In the immortal words of Winston Churchill:

There are always some people around who are content to remain neutral as between the fire brigade and the fire.

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

This perky agenda

This perky agenda ridden twit can't go soon enough...

 "Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Legit Journalism

You blame Mrs. Couric for bringing up the following statistics: 

Sixteen combat deaths this month. April is on track to be the deadliest month since September."

 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly

The fact is, as a journalist, our job is to take pertinent numbers and ask questions accordingly.  Mrs. Couric would have been at fault had she not asked the questions.

As for the question about dealing with negaive US citizen support... Patreus even granted her the position... saying...

 "you have to leave that to the American people who have to be the judge ultimately, who have to weigh all the different consequences along with, of course, our leaders."

While I understand the author of this article is not a journalist (if you are, I apologize for not knowing), you have to have a basic understanding of what a journalists job is to properly critique them.

This is not an instance where the interviewer was showing bias.  She was askign legitimate questions given the most recent date.  Most recent data...most recent, meaning NEW... and that's news.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

President George W. Bush,

President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

On Oct 11, 2000 it was "Mister" George W. Bush, as he didn't become President until Jan 19, 2001.

As a "journalist" I thought you may know that.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Oh, I'm sure Jeb and

Oh, I'm sure Jeb and diebold had it figured out by then...

Kidding, of course.

Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva

You're right.

Rude comment aside, thanks for the correction. 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-Gov. George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Thin skinned?

Simply out of curiosity, what was the rude comment you were referencing in Jack's correction to your false assertion?

Not Thin Skinned

 As a "journalist" I thought you may know that.

 Just his sarcasm that, while a journalist, I missed a basic fact that Mr. Bush wasn't yet president during the debate in which he made the statement in my tagline.

I'm not thin-skinned.  We're all (mostly) annonymous here and I'm not going to lose any sleep over a snide remark from someone on a blog whom I've never nor will ever meet.

I don't come here to throw insults.  I just like politics, media topics and debate.  I just hope it stays civil.

I think it's an indictment of society that it rarely does.

And believe me, the treatment is just as harsh at Kos and HuffPo. (not more or less... just different).

Also, it wasn't a false assertion.  Then Gov. Bush said the following:  "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Hi TC

I'm saying Jack is one of them, because I have a lot of respect for him, but there will always be rude posters on any site.

NB is by the far the best moderated political forum, I have ever seen. Even if they do not agree with you opinion, they will still listen to your POV.

Other websites will ban you on the spot for disagreeing with them. Redstate.com and DU are some examples.

Some advice is never to use the words Global warming Denier in to Noel. He does not like that term very much.

You're right

Spot on.  I've never had problems with any moderator for the things I've posted.

In fact, I've gotten reaction from an author or two on a few of my posts.  Never derogetory (sp).

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

correction

I meant to say Jack is not one of them. I have one of those keyboards that have a number pad of them as well, so typing on this laptop is a b*tch

The moderators and most of the contributing writers on here are pretty cool. I've only had problems with one of them, but no site is perfect.

I got ya.

I got ya.  And thanks for the background on a the site here.  I'm still kinda new (and, obviously in the minority on a lot of issues)

;-) 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

the curator

This site actually had lots of people that loved to type insults and bully people around. Thank goodness at least most of those people are not here anymore.

There are some as I am sure you can see, that love to use sarcasm in and insults if they cannot win a debate. Noel Sheppard said it best when he said Liberals are like Red Sox fans on a Yankee site. The thing is unlike other political sites, your opinion will be heard.

No really, we love it

No really,

we love it when liberals come here to a conservative site to make trouble . . .

The only thing funnier is when people from outside of the United States

  1. Login to this US based site
  2. Which is about Liberal bias in the (mostly US) press
  3. Run by (mostly) people in the US
  4. And then complaign that this place is so "US Centric"
  5. Bonus points for wondering why the London Daily Telegraph carries so much news about the Queen of England...

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Ah Freestinker

I am not sure where you read that liberals are in here to make trouble. I believe I said we were Red Sox fans in a Yankee website.

The curator has been nothing but respectful since he joined this site. I also believe I told him most people like to debate but others use sarcasm instead of debate. BTW sort of like your brilliant comebacks when I brought up your scoreboard

In the immortal words for Clear Thinker

"as you are probably already aware.... I love the score board!
And yes, it's a very American trait to keep score. Hell, why shouldn't we, we almost always win!"

As long as the scoreboard

As long as the scoreboard irritates liberals, we'll keep it in the arsenal. ;-)

 

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

freestinkers scoreboard thumbs up?

Well free, obviously you think that most conservative members of this site are wowed by the wit, when you cut liberals down with your inventive mocking scoreboard.

Obviously your buddy Clear Thinker, loves it. I would not be sure that others are quite as entralled.

If it makes you feel better to think it brightens up peoples days, then more power to ya buddy:-)

No, I just think it sets

No, I just think it sets off Liberals.

And thanks for helping prove the point. ;-)

 

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

bigtimer you are awesome!!!

Thank you for proving my point. The scoreboard is something a child does not a God fearing father of 2

btw. bigtimer is a liberal? Didn't you chide her once for saying you are liberal as a joke?

I'm glad you noticed it

I'm glad you noticed it works on RINOs too!

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

bigtimer is a RINO?

Give me a break. This just proves my point all along. You are the biggest hyprocrite on this site. You preach liberals can't debate now you using smears on bt and sarcasm towards me.

You remind of me of that petulant child that wants to so hard to be liked. Come on, you even named an award after youself to get yourself liked. Have a no shame?...sigh

Free, just what the hell

Free, just what the hell are you calling me a RINO for and what bee is in your little bonnet tonight with me...you're real impressive Free Stinker.

Not. 

Nobody paying attention enough to you?

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

you are correct bt

Bingo, nail right on the head. Not many people payed attention to him in school, so he is making up for it now.

I think his sunglasses says it all don't you?

As I said . .

As I said . . .

Touchy.

 

(update) Take your own advice

This is sad freestinker

bigtimer 1

freestinker 0

bt has reduced you to nothing but sarcasm and that is failing miserbly as well. I guess if you are going to be using the scoreboard, I guess since you don't have a patent on it, I can use in once in a while too.

Perhaps when you learn to debate like a grown up, you can think of something clever to say and calling bt a RINO is not one of them.

Oh really?

"This is not an instance where the interviewer was showing bias."

Oh really? Then why did she say things like:

"Meanwhile, General Petraeus insists" and "But to Petraeus"

Those are clearly biased introductions to questions as they show her predetermed beliefs as to the “proper” answers and that she doubts the General’s answers are an accurate and/or honest portrayal of the recent events in Iraq. That’s biased interviewing by ANYONE’S definition.

 

 

Wait, you mean that 6 month

Wait, you mean that 6 month of low rates of death, she can't report that. Actually April isn't even on track to be a bad month casualty wise. Go ahead, check icausualties.org if you don't believe me to see how we've been doing lately.

Looks right...

I just checked.  And you proved Mrs. Couric's statistics correct.

1.82 deaths daily is the highest average since Sept. 07 at 2.3 per day average. 

 I would argue that she didn't talk about the recent decrease in violence, because it's not news.  The spike this month is.  Granted, there is context there, which Patreus brings up during his answer.

Remember, its not the questioners job to do the answering for the interview subject.

She was asking about the spike this month - legit question.  Patreus counters with decrease beforehand - legit reponse.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-President George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

No bias

Well, well, a few posts here tonight prove beyond a doubt that there is no bias in the media, no "liberal" agenda at all. Ms. Perky is just an honest working girl, doing her job. I'm convinced.

None so blind as those who will not see.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Not really

 a few posts here tonight prove beyond a doubt that there is no bias in the media

I wouldn't say my opinion proves anything.  But, in all my years in TV news, I've never - NEVER - heard or seen a colleague or competitor (with whom I generally become friends) slant a story to purposefully steer public opinion.

I don't believe there is a 'liberal agenda,' any more than I believe there is a 'conservative agenda.' 

I do believe there are some (a very few) who aren't doing the media any favors.  Chris Matthews, Brett Baier, FOX and Friends, Keith Olbermann... etc.

But, by and large, yes... the media is a very objective beast.  Peoples perceptions that their candidate or position is being attack is a powerful motivator for accusations of bias.  Again... like a parent shouting a hockey referee that just called their kid for roughing.

"There's no WAY my little Johnny would ever punch anybody."

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

My years

In all my years of living, I have seen "liberal" bias in the media over and over again. Believe it or not, I truly tried in the begining to deny what was in front of my eyes. You insult those who see the truth by your analogy of the parent. I see that as a prime example of condescending elitism. And it's ironic, because most "journalists" really have nothing to be condescending about. I have little respect for the so-called "profession".

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Not my intent

 You insult those who see the truth by your analogy of the parent.

I'm not trying to be insulting.  The analagy was simply my opinion having been in both situations; accused of a biased referee and a biased journalist (funny, I've been accused of bias by both dems and repubs, by the way).

And, I apologize if it came off as condescending.  I try not to be a name-calling, bomb thrower.  Those converstations go no where.  So, I was just trying to illustrate a point.

I have little respect for the so-called "profession".

Sadly, if you have a blanket lack of respect for anyone in any form of news media (and, going by your tagline, a blanket distrust of anyone who's a liberal), then any type of a genuine discussion is probably lost with you.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

curator

so you truly believe that a position that all sides (worldviews) are equal is objective? 

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Not really

I'm not sure I completely understand the question... But, I'll try to answer.

I think 'the story' is bigger than the sides involved.  Meaning, no matter how it makes a certain side look, the story should be told with the facts - period.

Example, when I'm writing copy about a boy who was abducted and murdered recently, I would never say, "A town is in shock."

To me, that's editorializing.  How do I know the entire town is in shock?  Maybe some a-holes don't care that a little boy is dead?  That may make them a-holes... but, I have no right to speak to someone's state of mind... no matter how uniform that may be in a community.

That's a simplistic view... let's try a more hot button issue.

US citizen support for the war.

If I have a poll (my agency's, Reuter's, whatever...) that shows the majority of Americans are against the war... I report the majority of Americans are against the war - period.  That's the story.  Regardless of the sides (pro-war, anti-war).  The facts speak for themselves and I don't care who's offended by them.

Now, someone made a great point earlier, that opposition to the war was apparantly down to 54% from 74%.  That, in and of itself, is a story.  "Sentiment against the war is down 20% from last year"  Again, I wouldn't care what the anti-war establishment says about the headline.

With the Patreuas interview, however... my job is to ask him (in the limited time avail) about recent happenings.  That's the spike in violence.  I'm not doing my job if I don't cover that.

The context of public opposition being down is a story, but its a different story.

I hope that somehwat answered your question... or at least clarified my position a little.

As an aside... every story is unique and you approach given the particulars of that situation.  Meaning, I'd have to be in the situation to know how I'd question someone about something.  Eveyrthin I've said is purely hypothetical.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

curator, you are correct

you don't understand the question.  Try it like this:  what moral perspective do you bring to reporting of events?

When a homicidal maniac kills children dying in the process do you call it a suicide bombing (personify the wacko) or a slaughter of innocents?

In your Petraeus interview should not the questions be framed in context of the Surge and the violence as an abberation to the general recent trend?

Lastly you say I'd have to be in the situation to know how I'd question someone about something.  Sounds like you are saying the approach is subjective as it depends on how you perceive the situation.

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Last Post

 do you call it a suicide bombing (personify the wacko) or a slaughter of innocents?

I call it a "suicide bombing," not a "homicide bombing" because "suicide bombing" is more accurate.

ANY bombing that kills people is a homicide.

But, to specify a "suicide bomb" evokes the type of act the bombing was.  Its simply more descriptive.

Sounds like you are saying the approach is subjective as it depends on how you perceive the situation.

Not at all.  The situation dictates the question because I need background, context... nature of the events.  I can't make a blanket statement on how I would approach an interview without knowing the circumstances.  Those circumstances wouldn't dictate anys supposed 'slant' or 'bias.'  But, they would the manner in which I approach an interview subject.

ie... a father of a dead soldier.  I would probably approach him differently if his child had been killed two years ago, as opposed to two days.

Thats my last post of the night.  Thanks for the converstaions.  Good night, all.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Genuine discussion

I have had "genuine", intelligent discussions with thousands of people in my career. It is what I do. True, I do not trust modern "liberals" who are a breed apart from anyone I've ever had to deal with. I knew the old time liberals and respected them. However, your implication that I am in some way close-minded because I express, without hesitation, what I know to be true about modern "liberalism" simply supports my distrust. Therefore, you are correct about one thing-- trying to have a "genuine discussion" with you seems pointless. 

NEVER,NEVER trusta "liberal"

Then clarify

You don't point out 'modern liberals' in your tag line.  Just 'liberals.'  How am I supposed to know.  Clarify if you want me to know the difference.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Sorry curator,

your story doesn't fly in fly-over country.

(funny, I've been accused of bias by both dems and repubs, by the way).

My guess is you practice your "profession" in a metropolitan area where there is little to no difference in dems and repubs. (NY city mayor for example). You really don't understand how transparent you (general term referring to "journalists") are to most of us in the heart of this country. No animosity involved, you are just not capable of understanding. There is an overwhelming lack of respect for "journalists" that rivals or surpasses that for lawyers and politicians; all in general of course.

Karma... I've been

Karma...

I've been reading all of this from the beginning with curator... you summed it all up perfectly, politely with your post...of course that is just my opinion...

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

I also pointed out her

I also pointed out her bias, you missed that part. When you have to go all the way back to september because the last 6 months have had low casualties this whole time to prove a "spike" well it just shows everything. How much of this did we hear from the media when it was going on. More over if you compare this to much of the rest of the time this is still a low rate. Amazing how they can report the "spike" (and we'll see at the end of the month if this really is one.) yet can't report a trend of good news.

I've seen stories

I don't have anything to link to, but I've seen, read and heard mention of 'apparant success of the surge,' 'decrease in attacks,' 'decrease in casualties,' all over the place.

I've seen in print and tv (cable and network) news.

One thing people forget right now... coverage of the war is down... because so many resources are being put into election coverage.

In a time when many news outlets are making huge cuts (i.e. CBS), they are working with fewer staff... and more emphasis is being put on domestic news (the election).

I was at a conference two weeks ago where an ABC news radio guy said he has to fight to any kind of Iraq news (good or bad) into shows because all they want is election stuff.

There are a lot of reasons why the war has been getting less covereage... but, again, I've seen the reports on the surge teh last few months. 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

"One thing people forget

"One thing people forget right now... coverage of the war is down... because so many resources are being put into election coverage.

In a time when many news outlets are making huge cuts (i.e. CBS), they are working with fewer staff... and more emphasis is being put on domestic news (the election).

I was at a conference two weeks ago where an ABC news radio guy said he has to fight to any kind of Iraq news (good or bad) into shows because all they want is election stuff."

You see curator, many of us don't believe it's a matter of what the American people want. I'd hazard a guess that, except in upcoming primary states, people are pretty much weary of election news. The news cycle for this election has been longer than any I can remember. On the other hand, the candidates need to address Iraq. The state of the economy is a temporary issue, despite what the MsM would have us believe. Some of us believe that the purpose of the focus on the economy is to distract voters from considering the serious lack of foreign policy experience on the part of Obama in particular. His suggested "changes" in American foreign policy are both naive and dangerous. For that matter, his grasp of basic economic principals is pretty lame as well. Further, the focus on the economy also gives both Dem candidates the opportunity to tell the American people which one will better "take care" of them. By exagerrating the importance of the economy at this point in time, the MsM is giving the Dem candidates plenty of free ad time. And networks like CBS can count on continued revenue loss unless and until they get their heads out of their arses and serve the people.

Just the opinion of an average middle-class American living in Middle America.

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

“our latest poll”

“Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly"

“our latest poll” Would that be CBS’s latest poll? Whom did they poll? Their misinformed viewers? The CBS News staff?

Is there some unbiased way to corroborate “our latest poll”? Of course, we all implicitly trust CBS's assertions. NOT!

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Multiple Sources

You're smart not to trust just one source.  If you're wary about one source's polling data, it's good to check out what other outlets are saying... and possible do an average of the group.

 http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

This is a great website for where the public is at on Iraq - or at least seeing what polls from various news outlets are saying.  There are many others out there.  This is just one.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Taking an average of

Taking an average of multiple poorly performed polls still gives poor data.

"an independent, nonpartisan resource on American public opinion, published in Washington, D.C"

The Polling Report is a tightlipped ship.  Good luck finding out who the people are running it.  I don't trust a purposefully nameless bunch when it comes to reporting data.  They do, however, list Contributors from which I randomly sampled and googled:

  1. Lobbyist Nikki Heidepriem, who helped organize a group of Washington lobbyists, people and academics for Howard Dean. 

  2. Wally Mealiea, during his seven years at Hamilton & Staff, Wally was responsible for managing all aspects of clients' quantitative and qualitative public opinion research projects, including survey design, focus groups, strategic analysis, and client presentations. Clients included Democratic candidates for office ranging from state legislator to U.S. Senator, public affairs organizations, trade associations, corporations, and labor unions.

  3. Mark Rovner, Mark has led CTSG/Kintera's work on online fundraising, engagement, and communications strategies, with clients including Amnesty International USA, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and American Jewish World Service.

  4. Barbara Carvalho, director of Marist Poll.  Could not find any overt bias from previous employment or current commentary unless her stated expertise on the environment and quality of life issues is code for Liberal.

  5. Curtis B. Gans, well known for leading the effort against the re-election of President Lyndon Johnson in 1967 and serving as staff director of the Presidential campaign of Senator Eugene J. McCarthy the following year. He is former member of the Democratic National Policy Council and its Foreign Policy Subcommittee. He has served as a consultant to the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, the National Committee for an Effective Congress, and has managed a number of political campaigns.

  6. Jennifer Agiesta, a research analyst at the survey and consultancy group Belden Russonello & Stewart, www.brspoll.com, states in her March 22, 2007 article for Conscience magazine "Americans are not shifting their values or their morals; they are just saying no to the priorities and behavior of the current administration in Washington. I can live with that."

Side note:  Conscience is a magazine from Catholics For A Free Choice, a Pro-Choice on abortion group.

So, looking at 6 random Contributors of Polling Report, none of whom I knew about or had ever recalled hearing about, 3 are Liberal (Heidepriem, Mealiea and Rovner), 1 Conservative (Gans), 1 possible Liberal minded (Agiesta) and 1 Unknown (Carvalho).

Who can say if Polling Report is independent.  They don't list particulars on their operation.  And the claim of nonpartisanship is suspect until proven otherwise.

RRAM Tough! 

Come-on katie kurik.. your own CBS polls

 

Couric: "Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly -- more than half, obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?"

The response: Ms. Couric. Less than a year ago (May, 2007), CBS's own polling told you, and you folks played it up, "CBS POLL:  76% Say War's Going Bad."

Ms. Couric, the surge has been a success and the American voters understand that; that's why the number has dropped to 54% (within the margin of error - perhaps it's slighly less than 1/2 of the folks).  Imagine how many fewer folks would feel this way if you would begin to make even a small ethical attempt to report the news fairly? Imagine - your polls today might show that 75-80% believe that the effort is going much better. And if you would allow the facts to reflect in the polling, the jerk terrorists and extremists in Iraq would see the support, and would give it up.

Ms. Couric. It is you, and like minded folks, who keep the flame of successful terrorism alive in these radical elements.

don't good gentle into that goodnight

I kind of hate to see Katie go.  Nothing I enjoyed more than watching CBS and CBS News plowing their way into ratings hell......it's more fun than I can stand.  And, admit it all you politically correct people, Katie Couric was terrible on the nightly news, just terrible and nobody would come out and say it because she is a woman.  She dragged CBS into the turd tunnel of oblivion.  Sweet.

Katie Couric

I don't think that even those who still believe there is such a thing as a professional "journalist" would categorize Katie Couric as one. She is an entertainer and a not-too-bright, biased modern "liberal". To say she is overpaid for what she does is an understatement. Ironically, this is just what the "liberals" rail against when thry attack golden parachutes for CEO's who run a company into the ground. "Liberals" are such hypocrites.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

isia...man did you hit on

isia...man did you hit on a good point about the CEO's and the way over-paid leftist twits like Katie...made my night!

Of course the not too bright reference was a capper. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

General Petraeus must have been extremely frustrated...

General Petraeus must have been extremely frustrated given the fact that he is sitting there, listening and watching an incompetent weasel attempt to manipulate the conversation; attempting to manoeuvre the Commanding General of Iraq, distinguished soldier, a man of honor, a man of great intelligence. Look at her, then look at him. Look at him, then look at the Senate committee. He may not suffer fools gladly, but surely he suffers.

Thalpy...wow...you said it

Thalpy...wow...you said it all...you really did.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

I agree

I agree. It is an honor to watch this patriot show such grace under fire from some of the most low class, ignorant people in our society--Congress and the MSM.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"