The decline in bad news from Iraq is bound to improve the president’s poll ratings, right? But if it does, will you find the story? The Washington Post reported on its latest poll with ABC News in a story Friday headlined "Poll Shows More Optimism on War: After Record Lows, Bush Gains With Republicans, Independents." The Post placed it on page A-18.
Liberal activity was more important news. On A-3, we learned New Jersey voted to ban the death penalty. On A-7, the House passed a bill to ban harsh interrogations by the CIA. On A-8, Pat Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee declared Karl Rove and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.
Perhaps, just like the death tolls in Iraq, the Post will need to find several months of improving polls before it’s "real news." Reporters Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen diligently recounted that the polling news is still gloomy on the war being a mistake that needs to be ended, but:
Still, President Bush's approval ratings on the war have improved: One-third of those polled rate his handling of the war positively, up from his career low of 28 percent last December. That five-point increase in approval again comes primarily from Republicans.
Nearly three-quarters of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing on the war; nearly half, 48 percent, strongly approve, compared with 36 percent last December. Independents show a similar upward trend in their ratings but overall remain closer to Democrats than to Republicans in their assessment of Bush's performance on the war.
Among independents, approval of the president's war management has grown from 23 percent last December to 34 percent; strong approval has tripled, to 18 percent.
Bush's overall approval rating, at 33 percent, remains at his career low point in Post-ABC polling, with 64 percent disapproving. The percentage of Americans approving of the president has been the same since July and has been under 50 percent for more than 2 1/2 years.
It seems strange that Bush’s war numbers would improve, but the overall approval rating was unchanged. Earlier in the story, general optimism about the year ahead in Iraq was also experiencing a surge:
Although a majority say the United States is not making significant gains toward restoring civil order in Iraq, the public's views are more positive than at this time last year. About four in 10 say the United States is making progress, an increase of 10 percentage points over last year.
Looking ahead to the new year, the public is somewhat more hopeful about the situation in Iraq. Forty-six percent said they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq in 2008, six points higher than in December 2006.
The improved public assessment comes as the rate of U.S. casualties and the violence in general in Iraq have declined. The war has also recently been overshadowed by other issues on the presidential campaign trail.
Movement in public assessment on the war is largely driven by a more positive outlook among Republicans.
Nearly eight in 10 Republicans, 77 percent, said the United States is improving the security situation in Iraq, up from 54 percent a year ago. Three-quarters of Republicans are optimistic about the year ahead in Iraq; 12 months ago, barely more than half felt that way.
A majority of independents continue to see a lack of progress, but the percentage seeing significant gains is up 14 points, to 42 percent. At the same time, independents are about as pessimistic as they were. Democrats remain overwhelmingly negative about the situation on the ground now and in the year ahead.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Three-quarters of
December 14, 2007 - 07:02 ET by MidAmericaThree-quarters of Republicans are optimistic about the year ahead in Iraq; 12 months ago, barely more than half felt that way.
This implies that a majority of Republicans get their information from sources other than the MSM. OR...... they do as I learned from my father, you glean the MSM for nuggets of facts and then draw your own conclusions. (that means I've been news bustin' for around 50 years : ) )
However, it sure is a lot easier letting the New Media do that work.
MidAmerica -- that's
December 14, 2007 - 07:09 ET by Jack BauerMidAmerica -- that's OUTRAGEOUS.
How dare you dissent and assume it's the job of journalists to report the facts.
It's their job to do your thinking and reach conclusions so you don't have to.
Well actually it was
December 14, 2007 - 07:42 ET by MidAmericaWell actually it was easier to get the facts in the old days when I was young because the world was still controlled by the WWII boys and they had a strong sense of America first. Even though democrats had control of congress they had some strong conservatives. It wasn't until the boomers started to get control of the media that news evolved into a left-wing agenda oriented propaganda tool.
Fool me once...
December 14, 2007 - 07:51 ET by planetrepublicanI think the big untold story here is that many Americans are
not getting their news info from the MSM any longer. In fact, the distrust level we have of the
MSM is growing. People know propaganda
when they see it and don’t like to be jerked around and lied to, the old “fool
me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” adage. I don’t think the MSM is aware of this or if
they are, don’t want to admit it. They
think of themselves, I think, as heroes, champions of the poor and
downtrodden. We look at them like
Pravda, or as the propaganda arm of the DNC, and anti-American to boot (well,
DNC IS anti-American, as far as I am concerned). Well to Orwell’s 1984, MSM = Newspeak.
Actually we're too naive!!
December 14, 2007 - 07:57 ET by PawpawNActually those of us who do use these medians forget about how many don't. They are still lead by MSM and word of mouth. They are still gullible, they are still strict Dim voters. It's really difficult to get them to believe that any Repub can make the world a better place. And, last but not least, you just can't change the minds of all those DEAD voters!
Redirect
December 14, 2007 - 08:08 ET by BacchusWashington Post Memo: Page A-18 is the new Page A-1.
Instructions: Open to Page A-18. Refold. Begin.
As the Democrat media parrot ...
December 14, 2007 - 08:24 ET by 10ksnookerGoes through their dying throws, all polls begin to look funny. Polls aren't what they used to be, find out what people think, today they are for one thing and one thing only, shape public opinion. It's good that most stop paying attention to them long ago.
Except of course Newbusters, who we depend on for the straight poop.
Tim, Quick
December 14, 2007 - 08:30 ET by LeonTim,
Quick question.
What is the Newsbusters official stance on polls?
Anytime there's a negative poll for Republicans, you all say that polls are garbage.
Anytime there's a positive poll for Republicans, you complain it's getting no coverage and demand that people pay attention as if it were the ultimate truth.
I don't get it. You're confusing me.
PS has anyone on this site even so much as mentioned the 6 month Sadr cease fire that's going on right now with regards to the decline in violence? I know we already covered the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad.
I can't answer for Tim, but
December 14, 2007 - 08:43 ET by Free ThinkerI can't answer for Tim, but I believe polls are lazy journalism. The issue for this particular case is the placement of these polls in the media - bad for Bush goes to page 1 typically, success for Bush goes to page A-18. As well chronicled here, the succcess of the surge and of our military in Iraq has basically been buried from the news cycle. Also Leon, don't kid yourself as to why those cease fires are taking place and I won't even recognize the ethnic cleansing comment but give you the benefit of the doubt of being wiser than that.
Free, 1) Bad for Bush
December 14, 2007 - 08:49 ET by LeonFree,
1) Bad for Bush goes to page one typically?
That's just not true. You're really telling me that all of the negative polls for Bush over the past 7 years have been on page 1? That's absurd. Polls go where polls should go. A-18.
2) The success of the surge has not been buried, people are wary of blowing the trumpet too soon. Especially considering how many times that's been done before, i.e. Cheney last throes.
3) Ethnic cleansing is a well-documented fact. Baghdad has effectively been segregated based on ethnicity. Don't get me wrong, the decline in violence is tremendous, but our goal wasn't to establish an ethnically divided Iraq.
PS has anyone on this
December 14, 2007 - 08:57 ET by BacchusYea, we noticed, right after General Patreaus put the fear of god into him. What's your point?
Didn't it occur to you that Sadr knew he'd be toast if he didn't cooperate?
Bacchus, I imagine there
December 14, 2007 - 09:02 ET by LeonBacchus,
I imagine there was some economic/political power incentive going on.
I don't think the Sadr Militia is scared of the US army. They don't have to fight us face to face. To accomplish their goals of disruption they just have to launch minor attacks every once in a while. Run away, and do the same thing somewhere else.
If they squared off with us they get annihalated.
To accomplish their goals
December 14, 2007 - 09:07 ET by Free StinkerTo accomplish their goals of disruption they just have to launch minor attacks every once in a while.
Until we pull an Al Zarqawi on them with 500lbs of satelite guided whoop ass.
"George W. Bush simply reminds leftists everyday what they will never be. And they hate him for it." --Tammy Bruce
Free, I suppose except
December 14, 2007 - 09:10 ET by LeonFree,
I suppose except for the simple fact that satellite guided or not, these guys operate in civilian areas.
We might a handful of insurgents, but we'd also kill a large number of innocents. That doesn't seem to be our style. If we could kill civilians, this war would have been over when Bush pretended it was over (i.e. mission accomplished). If Sherman were in charge, it would have been easy.
Our soldiers are good people that don't want to kill anyone that's not the enemy. And I respect that.
Our soldiers are good
December 14, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Free StinkerOur soldiers are good people that don't want to kill anyone that's not the enemy
I agree. That's proably why it took so long to get Al Zarqawi in the first place.
[I now regret taking the
December 14, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Bacchus[I now regret taking the bait, and it's off-topic too, however...]
So what?
You asked about Sadr originally and now you prattle on about the break-up of militia. Any storm in a port. Right?
I need one bit of
December 14, 2007 - 09:08 ET by Hero SquadI need one bit of information regarding the placement of the article on page A-18. Is it the back page of the first section of the paper, or is it an inside page?
It's an important distinction, because the back page is actually a more promient page than page A-7, A-8, and at least on level with A-3. When I was an editor, if I had a back page to work with that day, the "almost made the front page" stories would go there.
Now if A-18 is an inside page, then I'd agree with you that it is being deliberately buried.
One more question: Where did the previous articles highlighting the lower poll number articles? The new article doesn't necessarily have to fall exactly in that place (because an editor first has to layout the newspaper based on the priority of that day's news), but it should fall relatively close, such as A-3 for one, A-5 for the other.
*****
"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan.....
December 14, 2007 - 09:56 ET by Prester JohnHundreds of Taliban Killed By Salmonella And Combined Arms, But Mostly Combined Arms
As the only journalist to join NATO forces entering the town, I found it a ghost town abandoned by both the Taliban and its residents at the end of an eight-day coalition operation. The offensive was one of NATO's biggest in the country since Operation Anaconda in 2002.
Embedded with a team of British troops and a detachment/"A–team" of U.S. special forces, I watched the Taliban being pounded these last few days with overwhelming force -- vapor trails circled in the clear blue sky over the Helmand desert as B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships were used to kill hundreds of Taliban fighters.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/249288.php
Don't forget to read the comments, some of them are hilarious!
Source story on ABC:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/exclusive-eyewi.html
Get the "bad news" out
December 14, 2007 - 10:13 ET by TaserCatThe MSM ought to get their "bad news"-- Iraq & Bush more popular-- out now. The longer they wait, the closer to the election it gets.
And if the successes in Iraq continue, it will just get harder to ignore (or bury on A-18).
Get it out now MSM! Then you'll have more time to bake up something else, to cook that "Evil Bushie" with.