Spinning The "Islamist" Polls And Why It's Damaging

Remember the good old days when the Liberal Media was, well, Liberal?

Yesterday I commented that CNN's Heidi Collins reported on a poll that showed an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the US as not only having strong work ethics, but also being opposed the suicide bombings.

78% believe that suicide bombings are NOT justified.
8% believed that suicide bombings ARE justified.
15% of young Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified.

At any rate and any age suicide bombings are a massively unpopular idea amongst a very clear majority of Muslims living in America.

But CNN, perhaps sensing the wrath of the Patriotism Police has repeatedly spun this poll - which should make Muslims look better, into something which is making Muslims look worse.

This morning CNN's Kiran Chetry jumped on the poll spinning bandwagon.

Again, the majority of Muslims who did not approve of suicide bombings were ignored and the minority of Muslims who did approve of such attacks was highlighted.

Polls are taken to find out what a majority of people think, not what a minority of people think.

I bet there are at least 8% of whites who still think hanging African Americans is acceptable and wishes slavery was still permissible.

I bet 15% of young people think that school shootings are acceptable and justified.

The point is a minority of people are always going to be off balance, no matter what country you are from. I believe that about 30% of any given population is off balance in whatever way is unique to them.

That's why it's important to look at what the majority of people are saying, because there is always going to be crackpots that think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero or the Anarchist Cookbook is the best piece of "literature" ever.

The majority of Muslims in America are saying that suicide bombings are not justified. That majority is being insulted every time their numbers are ignored to focus on the 8% of nutcases who believe the bombings are justified.

It's just another example of biased and unfair reporting.

Why not report on the good and obvious news? 78% of Muslims in the US do not condone this type of violence. I believe this indicates the "martyr jihad-jihad" ideology is a regional and political problem in the middle east, and not a problem within the religion itself.

Because of the violence and extremism in Iraq and other scattered regions of the Middle East there is a perception that every single Muslim is an "Islamist". I think this is a mistake that not only isolates us from the moderate Muslims but also weakens the moderate Muslims and empowers the extremist.

So as long as were willing to lump all these people together regardless of what they believe or how they act, rail about all the negative while ignoring their positive accomplishments and the progression they do make, then how are we encouraging anyone to be more Democratic?

When you are in control and people are "good" you should reward them with praise and incentives, that way they are inclined to continue the "good" behavior.

But when you are in control and people are "good" and you instead start looking for something bad to highlight you are not giving the people any incentive to repeat the "good" behavior". It's really that simple.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said :

"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."

All of this, of course, only persuades me to buy a TV card for my PC, that way I can post video in the future, I can't always rely on someone else having the video of something I want to post.

And it reminds me to remind everyone else who hasn't seen "Buying The War" yet to watch it soon.

UPDATE:

Thankfully not everyone is spinning the poll, but some people are getting hysterical over it. Let's compare and contrast some headlines.

From the corner where they are spinning so much they are dizzy and that must explain their incoherence :

'Troubling' views on suicide bombings - From the SF Chronicle which cited a hate group leader as expert in an article two days ago.

THIS TINY LUNATIC FRINGE ADDS UP TO A BIG THREAT - From the irrational and yellow stained New York Post, no elaboration needed.

Check out how the transparently biased Jerusalem Post has padded the numbers by 10% with the headline "25% of Muslim teens: Suicide bombs OK"

Now, let's look at some of the more rational reactions to the poll :

Survey: US Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism

Survey of US Muslims shows moderate views

Muslims content with lives in US

Muslim survey overall points to tranquil lives

Spinning the Polls About The "Islamist"

OK, so I was just watching CNN, and Heidi Collins was reporting on a recent poll that asked Muslims in America how they felt about a number of things.

The majority of Muslims polled were born outside the US and believed in American work ethics.

When asked about suicide bombings a very clear majority - 78% said the bombings were not justified, just 8% believed that the bombings were justified. A graphic on the screen displayed the poll results.

But when Collins reported on the poll she only stated the number of the minority of Muslims who believed suicide bombings were justified and ignored the clear majority who believed the bombings were not justified.

Yet another example of manipulating or ignoring the facts.

I will update this post as soon as I can get a transcript and/or video.

A Victory For The Reich, Silencing A Voice Of Dissent

CBS has fired Iraq War veteran General John Batiste from his position as a consultant over a VoteVets ad which targeted and criticized President Bush and handling of the Iraq War. The ad can be watched at YouTube or at the VoteVets website.

So what do the right wingers who lashed out about "free speech" when CBS canceled Don Imanass feel about that?

Do the Imanass supporters believe Don has the "right" to call African American females "nappy headed ho's" on the air but a retired General does not have the right to give a candid opinion about a war?

The ideology behind the concept of free speech was in part to protect political speech that dissented from the "norm" or the established power structure, to allow Americans to assert their political opinions without being silenced, not to allow silly old white cowboys to use racial and sexual slurs.

The ousting of Batiste from CBS is a reminder to watch Bill Moyers "Buying the War". The Bush Administration and apparently some members of the media are still trying to salvage this war and public opinion on it and are willing to try silence voices of dissent that hinder their efforts.

Will the Reich champion the ousting of Batiste from CBS? One can almost be certain.

Does the Right enjoy "censorship" now? I don't know yet for sure because I try to avoid the right wing blogs and opinions because the kool aid they have over there induces involuntary vomiting and often results in seizures and I don't have my Dilantin so I'm not willing to find out.

But on a more serious note I do find the firing of Batiste to be somewhat disturbing. So now the mainstream media will only allow us to see or hear are people who are willing to sell the official Administration Party line, even if they do it somewhat begrudgingly?

I trust the MSM less with each passing day and I am so thankful that we have the Internet and access to newspapers, blogs and Op-Eds from all around the world and political spectrum, hopefully they don't find a way to bring that down as well.

UPDATE : Think Progress is following the story :



- CBS VP On Batiste: ‘The Viewer Might Have The Feeling Everything He Says Is Anti-Bush’
- CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy
- CBS has a consultant who advocates in favor of President Bush’s war policies and against Congressional action
- CBS Has Allowed McCain Campaign Aide To Advocate For McCain On Air

Palestine Is Not Hamas

There is nothing that I am more sick of than hearing people equate all Palestinians to militants like Hamas. This weakens the moderates and empowers the extremist.

Hamas has suspended a TV show that has a character named Farfour, who looked and sounded suspiciously like Mickey Mouse.

Farfour told impressionable young Palestinian children :

"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists,"

"We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers."

The brain pollution was yanked off the air and the AP reports that :

"Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti said the character — a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice — represented a "mistaken approach" to the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation."

While the AP reported the story as it was : Hamas aired the offensive material, Hamas pulled the show off the air - many sources have decided to pounce on it as follows "Palestinians shelve 'martyr mouse' kids show".

Yes, the "martyr mouse" part is funny. But it masks the misleading first word "Palestinians", it should read "Hamas shelves 'martyr mouse' kids show"

Not every Palestinian is Hamas, just like every American is not Republican.

Hamas steps out of line, the Palestinian people as a whole are blamed.

Why bother to even pay attention to the fact that politically the Fatah/Hamas split is about as evenly split as between any Liberals and Conservatives in any country in the world?

Fatah is more Liberal, more open to dealing with Israel where Hamas in Conservative, old school and not willing to deal with Israel or anyone else for that matter, so it seems.

Let's get this strait, when Hamas or even Fatah does something drastic, stupid, anarchic it does not mean it has the seal of approval from the majority of the Palestinian people who actually want to live in peace.

So it is unfair to write "Palestinians shelve martyr mouse". Writing "Hamas shelves martyr mouse is just as effective and certainly much more accurate.

UPDATE: Mickey Mouse lookalike back on Hamas TV

Wolf Blitzer Cites Democratic Sex Scandals But Ignores Republican Ones

This just in : the latest example of why the saying "there is no such thing as the Liberal Media" is true...

Media Matters reports that CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while discussing the current "DC Madam" scandal cited several sex scandals of Democrats without mentioning the 2006 scandal of Republican Representative Mark Foley - who was having inappropriate relationships with underage male pages.

Blitzer also failed to mention Newt Gingrich's 1999 extramarital affair with then congressional aide Callista Bisek -- whom he later married.

...Fox News’ reporting was parody, but reporting parody news is a new low.

Think Progress Reports :

"On Tuesday, Fox News morning show “Fox & Friends” aired at least eight segments on a purported “news” story that was actually a parody article written by a publication similar to The Onion.

The backstory: Last week in the town of Lewiston, Maine, a group of Somalian Muslim middle school students were the subject of a cruel prank when their peers placed a ham steak next to them in order to personally offend the students. School officials filed a report because the
students considered the act to be a hate/bias crime.

This actual story was then spoofed by a parody site called Associated Content, which made up quotes and details, such as the school’s intention to “create an anti-ham ‘response plan.’”

On Tuesday, Fox & Friends reported these parody quotes and details as actual news. Poking fun at the students, hosts asked whether ham was “a hate crime…or lunch?” and showed screen shots of ham sandwiches, starving Somalians, belching, animal noises, and mock “reenactments” of the incident. Ironically, the hosts assured viewers several times, “We’re not making this
up!”

Fox’s careless blunder made news in the town and “launched an immediate avalanche of angry phone calls and ugly e-mails to the school system.”


Read Full Story

Faux News is always finding new lows to slink to. Fox News is to legitimate journalism what Jerry Springer is to a serious talk show: sensationalist, over the top and absurd.

Buying The War Or Selling The War?

Last night PBS aired what is perhaps the most important documentary about the Mainstream Media, it's interaction with the Bush Administration and how they helped push the American people into an unnecessary war with Iraq.

Buying The War takes an extensive look at the role journalist played in the run up to the war and their failure to even investigate the Bush Administrations claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or their claims of an Iraqi connection to 9/11.

Instead the media became lapdogs where traditionally they were watchdogs. Gone was the investigative efforts and cynicism that used to be present during the Nixon and Clinton years.

In the emotional aftermath of 9/11 journalist let their patriotism, instead of their logic lead them.

Instead of investigating any of the claims being made by the Bush Administration or taking seriously the evidence contrary to the Bush Administration claims, the feeling was that no one wanted to "question a popular 'wartime' President".

How could the Mainstream Media ignore the implications of scripted press conferences where only "friendly" journalist were allowed to ask questions like "How is your faith guiding you?" instead of "So where are those WMD's you have been telling us about?"

Any ruler knows one of the most important steps to becoming an absolute authority is to have control over the Press and the Press let themselves be put under the spell of George W. Bush and therefore became a failure to our Free Press.

Listen to this statement by former member of the allegedly Liberal media, Dan Rather:

"George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and you know, as just one American wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

I think it's fair to say that this is the way all the journalist were feeling after 9/11, raw emotion coupled with blind patriotism.

Truth, accountability and objectivity was no longer important to journalist, subservience to the President was, showing what a patriotic bootlicker was what was really important. It was a new order in which the Press was no longer independent from the government.

Journalist who stepped out of the official line were quickly attacked by what many have referred to as the "Patriotism Police".

The documentary illustrates a complete failure of our so called Free Press, who hold at least some culpability in persuading the American people to go to war by failing to be objective and failing to investigate claims being made - all out of fear of having their patriotism questioned.

What else can be noted is that all the neoconservative warhawk pundits who are calling themselves "experts" who claimed "We would be greeted as liberators" and "there are WMD's in Iraq" and that "there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq" are still being giving platforms on televisions, even after all of their fervent beliefs have been proven to be false.

Several journalist were skeptical of claims being made by the Bush Administration but they were not given the same spotlight as those who were beating the drum for war.

Furthermore it wasn't like the evidence contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming was very hard to find.

Time after time independent journalist and journalist outside the "beltway bubble" released reports contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming but the Mainstream Media failed to pick it up or research the claims themselves.

I can't possibly do this documentary any justice by blogging about it, you have to watch it to believe it. The amount of details and information provided by Bill Moyers is impossible to condense into a blog.

The failure of the Mainstream Media becomes painfully obvious in hindsight when watching the documentary, which is a "must see" for any critic of the Mainstream Media or the Iraq War.

For broadband users the video can be watched at this link.
For dial up users a transcript can be read at this link.

After watching the documentary one realizes how easy it is for the Media to be wrong on the facts but rally for war anyway.

One also realizes there are still several journalist who are under the control of the "Patriotism Police".

ABC Gets It Wrong On Tillman

Is this ABC article poorly researched or deliberately misleading?

Tillman's Fictional Heroic Death: Did Bush Know?

Did Bush know? Did Bush know?!?

Back in March The Associated Press reported that :

"Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press."

So did Bush know? That's a ridiculous question.

The President had been informed that Pat Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire and decided to take advantage of the story of a real American hero in order to rally support around the war and perhaps to divert attention away from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

Virgina Tech Coverage Went WAY Overboard

Who knew how many US soldiers died last week? Who knew the Attorney General was a terrible liar that was perhaps guilty of participating in attempting to politicize the justice system? Who knew that an Iraq war veteran, suffering from PTSD took hostages and demanded treatment for his condition?

The mainstream media went way overboard in it's handling of the Virgina Tech massacre. Granted this was the worst shooting in American history, but the media didn't even allow students time to recuperate and heal before heading back to classes this morning.

Before the gunman's body was hauled off campus pundits in America were already getting their digs in and turning a nonpolitical event into a political and media circus. Maybe I should take that back, everything is politcal in America.

Some "kind hearted" pundits in the Right Wing blamed the victims for being victimized, others claimed the answer to gun violence was more guns.

The Mainstream Media went to outlandish and may I say stooping levels in trying to gain interviews with students, such as infiltrating the realm of Facebook and trying to recruit interviews by posting messages and sending repeated emails to students, some of which got fed up who then posted themselves that the MSM should stop trying to contact them.

If the 24/7 news reel of misery and exploitation last week did not prove the MSM has gone too far, then maybe the fact that Virginia Techs student government has asked that all journalists leave campus by 5 a.m. this morning should.

Let's give these students some time to recover and gather their thoughts, they have a life to go on with and it is doubtful they want their tragedy to be exploited so the mainstream media can get ratings.

Developing Politics Of Virgina Tech Shooting

The Republicans are desperate to discuss anything other than Iraq and Bush, and that is part of the reason why they are so eager to discuss something on grounds they are more comfortable with and have substantial support on, like lack of gun control.

If Republicans are able to keep the American people's attention focused on things like Virginia Tech and gun control then they are successful at keeping the American people's attention diverted away from the Iraq War and the embattled President Bush.

We cannot let the incident at Virgina Tech outweigh or outshine the ongoing events in Iraq and the Bush Administration. Nor can we allow the Republicans to use this incident as a red herring to distract us from issues that are forgivably more essential for the long term prosperity of America.

Defending Imus Is Lame And A Shame
There is a fundamental difference between priviladge and right.

"Economic McCartyism" Ted Rall says of the deposition of the dreadful Don Imus. Well, I never liked Rall's cartoons anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is taking up a losing argument.

Just listen to these crybabies whine about how Don Imus should be allowed to broadcast bigotry that, well, most people just don't want to hear.

So if a rock radio station chooses to quit broadcasting a certain rocker because the listeners find it lame or offensive, is that "economic McCathyism" or is it a rejection of the product?

For one, there is no such thing as "economic McCathyism", it's a made up term for Americans who don't like boycotts on their products. They carry some kind of logic that suggests "Well, I don't care if you don't like my product, I'm going to shove it down your throat anyway."

Imus had the privilege, not the right to be on television and radio.

PRIVILIDGE, NOT RIGHT.

In America, privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.

Imus may have been exercising his right to free speech by making such inflammatory remarks, but those who condemned his remarks and demanded his ouster were also exercising their right to free speech.

Just because speech is free in this country doesn't mean it is without it's consequences.

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the privilege of being on the television or radio when you say it.

Let's not forget that Proctor & Gamble and Staples pulled advertising from the Imus show before Imus was fired. Once the advertisers start leaving the networks start losing, so let's not beat around the bush here, at the point Imus was more offensive than profitable he was out of a job.

That my friend, is not "economic McCarthyism". Companies have the right to not want their product associated with perceived bigotry and citizens have the right to voice complaints against open bigotry.

Only Don Imus is to blame in the firing of Don Imus. Imus' freedom of speech has not been infringed upon because Congress never made a law against Don Imus or what he said, READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE!!

Imus' privilege of being broadcast by MSNBC and CBS may have been revoked, but his right to freedom of speech has not been revoked.

If Imus can find any advertisers willing to take him on (besides the KKK or Aryan Nation) then I am sure he will again have the privilege of using the airwaves to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

Otherwise Imus needs to get a blog where he can say any old thing he wants or fade into the background for a while and give everyone else some time to cool off.

With that said, people have the right to boycott anything they like, whether it is a product or a person. Products and people can be rejected for any number of reasons, and you can't force people to consume a product or person they don't like.

Don Imus was wrong to say what he said and he paid for his comments with his job. Imus has a long history of making inflammatory remarks about African Americans, Jews, and woman so let's cut it with the rhetoric and freedom of speech conspiracy theories.

Jon Stewart And Steven Colbert Viewers Better Informed Than FOX Viewers?

Editor & Publisher reports :

"Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct.

[...]

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. ."

[ ... ]

Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.

--------------------

You can take the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press News IQ Quiz At This Link. I am proud to announce I answered every question correctly and found the "quiz" to be quite easy and was very surprised to read the high percentage of adults who preformed poorly on the quiz.

------------------

I always knew FOX wasn't real news and the results only confirmed what I had already believed about the enterprise.

I was not surprised that "morning network news" scored the lowest in nearly all the provided categories. I have always been turned off by the perky pop culture "news" of morning talk shows that resembled entertainment and celebrity gossip than it resembled informative news, and now I know why.

So not only is FOX biased, but their viewers walk away with less information and knowledge regarding current events than those who get their news from comedians Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.

Why do FOX News viewers generally walk away with less retained information than those who watch comedy shows? Is it because FOX pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity spend more time trying to distract from the facts and focus in on partisan red meat?

Why do more Republicans, who would generally watch FOX news, tend to be in the least aware group? Does the fact that they are least aware have anything to do with the fact that they continue to support President Bush and a thus far failed policy in Iraq? It's all food for thought.

Overall though, I am seriously disappointed with the results of the test.

Disappointed that both Democrats and Republicans, no matter what news source they watched, were ill informed or lacked the capacity to retain the information they had been presented with.

The results of the quiz indicate that barely half of Americans only vaguely know what is going on in their own country, even in a time of war.

These Americans know who Beyonce Knowles is, but don't have a clue who runs their country. That's pitiful, and it's useless information to know. Great, Beyonce Knowles is pretty and can sing, but that information has nothing to do with the big picture, in fact it only serves to distract people from the big picture and the seriousness of the time we live in.

The results also indicate that people who lived in 1989 were more knowledgeable about current events and politics than the people of 2007. This is despite all the 24 hour news networks and frequently updated Internet news sites. I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.