A new report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds the public has relatively little confidence in what the military and the media are telling them about the war in Iraq, although the press has less credibility than the Pentagon.
Interestingly, a majority of self-described Democrats say they are putting their confidence in the media, while Republicans have generally opted to trust the military. In 2005, a major study by the Media Research Center found the vast majority of network news reports highlighted the bad news coming out of Iraq, with few reports detailing the accomplishments or personal bravery of U.S. troops.
Here’s an excerpt of the report written by the Pew Research Center’s Associate Director Michael Dimock and released yesterday:
Four years into the Iraq war, most Americans say they have little or no confidence in the information they receive — from either the military or the media — about how things are going on the ground. Fewer than half (46%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that the U.S. military is giving the public an accurate picture of the situation, and even fewer (38%) are confident in the press's portrayal of the war....While Democrats, Republicans and independents all express less confidence in the information they are receiving about Iraq today, there is now a substantial partisan divide in how these two institutions are viewed. The vast majority of Republicans (73%) remain at least somewhat confident in the military's portrayal of how the war is going, compared with just 32% of Democrats. At the outset of the war, the partisan gap was far less pronounced.
Conversely, Republican confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war has declined more sharply. In March 2003, eight-in-ten Americans generally trusted press reports and opinions did not differ across party lines. Today, fewer than a third of Republicans (29%) feel confident in what they are hearing from the press, while about half of Democrats (51%) remain confident in the news from Iraq.
Independents have become skeptical of the information they are getting from both institutions. The share of independents who express at least a fair amount of confidence in military portrayals of the war is down from 83% to 39% since the start of the war, and their confidence in the accuracy of press reports has declined from 81% to 34%.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
You know what i'm talkin about!
April 6, 2007 - 09:18 ET by MC RoveThis has always been the plan: When nobody believes anything anyone says, it's easier to get away with lies!
[I'm talking about the liberal media. I always tell the truth.]
;-) ;-)
Even Bush doesn't trust the m
April 6, 2007 - 09:41 ET by ding7777Even Bush doesn't trust the military - he fires the Generals who disagree with him
Really, so what? Presidents
April 6, 2007 - 09:45 ET by MightyMouthReally, so what? Presidents have never fired Generals in time of war? What an utterly sensless post.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
of course!
April 6, 2007 - 09:54 ET by MC Roveexactly MM, how else could he be sure that they follow every one of his perfectly legitimate and legal orders in this all-important war against global terror?
dingo, You're a useless col
April 6, 2007 - 09:55 ET by John in CAdingo, You're a useless collection of cells.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Uhh, ding, maybe you are no
April 6, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Dave RUhh, ding, maybe you are not clear on how this works. Generals take orders from the President. Presidents take advice from generals.
Presidents can fire generals any time they wish, and for any reason they wish. In the aftermath of the German defeat in WW II, George S. Patton, Jr., one of our greatest combat generals ever, was canned by Truman. In the Korean war, Douglas MacArther was canned as well.
It can happen to the best of them.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
MightyMouth, MC Rove, John in
April 6, 2007 - 12:02 ET by ding7777MightyMouth, MC Rove, John in Ca, Dave R - uh, the supposition of this thread was Republicans have generally opted to trust the military, and the irony that the Numero Ono Republican Bush doesn't trust his military is lost on you - go figure!
ding-a-ling is here to play a
April 6, 2007 - 12:17 ET by bigtimerding-a-ling is here to play again today.
Whiz-bang delux.
Wished you'd get a clue somewhere, sometime someway...just for that bell to go ding-dong in your head and see the light would be priceless...
Right when pigs fly.
Hopeless.
Ok, ding, Ill play along. Jus
April 6, 2007 - 12:25 ET by bassndudeOk, ding, Ill play along. Just how do you figure that W dosent trust the military? If he dosent trust them why is it he sent them to Iraq? Why not only the blackwater?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ding, Since the pres is Num
April 6, 2007 - 13:01 ET by MightyMouthDing, Since the pres is Numero Ono, he IS the Military! Ever heard the term "The buck stops here"? Or is that concept lost on you!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ding:You obviously have never
April 6, 2007 - 16:31 ET by BDDing:
You obviously have never witnessed this first hand, but those of us in the military with experience have. Examples:
1.) LBJ used to personnally select bombing targets during Vietnam rather than trust his military targeteers. Usually such targets were selected for political purposes rather than actually military effect. Not tooooo, much damage to the enemy or have it appear in the press, but enough to convey the message tot he enemy of what......... precisely the problem, the enemy couldn't figure out what LBJ was trying to tell them by the effort.
2.) Carter and Desert One. WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH SAID.
3.) Clinton and the Balkans. Same thing, Bombing of open empty fields just to prove we could do it from 30,000 feet and not get hurt in the effort.
Conversely, Republicans rely on the military to complete the Military Decision making Process (MDMP) and get the job done once the mission has been assigned.
1.) Reagan and Libya, Grenada, etc.
2.) Bush and the Persian Gulf War.
3.) And finally Bush and Afghansitan/ Iraq.
As you brought it up earlier, you are probably referring to Bush selecting General Eric Shinseki's replacement a year early in 2002. All I can say is "Got a Beret?"
Only a commie lib can go fr
April 6, 2007 - 12:15 ET by mtwokayOnly a commie lib can go from Bush firing a few generals to Bush doesn't trust the military. Why am I even responding to this insanity?
Ding:Yesterday I think we got
April 6, 2007 - 16:19 ET by BDDing:
Yesterday I think we got some of our own clinical research on just why liberals such as J Frank Wilson detest the military and their own country. It comes down to a pathological hatred of themselves, and by extension their own country.
In the session I invite you to check out on the Open Page for Thursday in its first page, we explored the pathology of J Frank Wilson in relation to its effect on him as verifiable good news was broached.
A good example would go something like this:
Question: Did you hear that a group of AQ terrorists were killed as they tried to enter Afghanistan?
JFrank Response: Well, its just Bush attracting bad guys to Afghanistan . He should have killed them all before. Bin Laden is still alive and it is all Bushes fault. AQ holdouts are occasionally murdering people in Kabul, then slipping away. Besides, America is an evil place. We should just surrender.
I think entire psychological surveys could be written based on the liberal position reference to this phenomenon.
I agree. Only the worst of p
April 6, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. Only the worst of presidents fires a general in wartime.
I guess you forget Scott, McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade. All in a 4-year span.
Sorry, Ding. Your comment was muy estupido.
Or FDR getting rid of Loyd Fr
April 6, 2007 - 16:33 ET by BDOr FDR getting rid of Loyd Fredendall in North Africa and later promoting Eisenhower to Supreme ALllied Commander Europe over many senior people already on the job.
BD,IIRC, FDR really wanted Ge
April 6, 2007 - 16:39 ET by BlondeBD,
IIRC, FDR really wanted George C. Marshall as SACEUR, but decided he was indespensible where he was. Eisenhower was a Marshall protege, which is why Ike got the job.
Did you ever read the Pogue bio of Marshall? Unbelievable. General Marshall was my pick for man of the century.
Blonde:Several years ago I re
April 6, 2007 - 17:02 ET by BDBlonde:
Several years ago I read a biography of Marshall that was excellent. The part that sticks in my mind was his exasperation with Stilwell who kept calling Chang Kai Shek "Peanut" during meetings with him.
It was a funny read.
BD,Who wrote that one? Soun
April 6, 2007 - 17:05 ET by BlondeBD,
Who wrote that one? Sounds like something I should take the time to track down. I am such a huge Marshall fan. I saw a great exhibit on him at the Truman Library several years ago.
Vinegar Joe....wow.
Boy, I cannot remember who au
April 6, 2007 - 17:14 ET by BDBoy, I cannot remember who authored it, I am TDY now away from home and cannot check, sorry