Leftwing Media Bias

Same poll, different spin: The latest CBSNews/New York Times Poll is out. CBS reports that Americans "approve of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power" by a margin of 76% to 20%. The New York Times reports that "Support for Bush Surges at Home, but Split Remains" I'll get to the "split" in a moment. But first, they write that Americans "approved of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq" 70% to 27%. These were in fact two distinct questions from the same survey. But it's kind of funny that the Times chose to lead with the more partisan question with the predictably less impressive numbers than the one that CBS chose.

And the "split"? The "split" is that "While 93 percent of Republicans said they approved of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq, just 50 percent of Democrats did." Where do the independents stand? The NYT doesn't tell us. Since there are undoubtedly some undecided responders, it's clear that more Democrats support "Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq", let alone the basic concept of military action against Iraq, than oppose either. Yet the Times chose to spin this in the most partisan way possible.

Meanwhile, over on the other coast in Baghdad by the Bay, the San Francisco Chronicle demonstrates yet again that it may as well be the pro-bono P.R. agency if not for the Tikrit Mafia, then at least for the Pelosi wing of the Democratic party.

THE U.S.-LED war on Iraq has been accompanied by assaults on free speech in the homeland.

Which assaults might those be? Is the FBI torturing Ruth Rosen again?

The attempt to label anyone who disagrees with the war as "unpatriotic" is predictable, but no less disturbing.

Never mind the hyperbole about labeling "anyone who disagrees" as "unpatriotic". We're not really talking about assault, we're talking about criticism. Which is simply another form of, uh, free speech.

Americans who support the war should be respectful of those who speak against it with deeply held convictions.

i.e. please don't be mean to us, because we hold our idiotic delusions as sincerely as, say, Hitler, bin Laden and the Tokyo subway nerve gas people held theirs.

Opponents of war, for their part, should recognize the foolishness of trying to use vandalism and intimidation to protest the use of military force.

Note that opponents of war are not called upon to be respectful of those who support the war. It's just not a good strategy to use violence against 76% of the population.

Once the fighting began, however, the diplomatic option vanished. We support the troops and their mission.

Yeah, with all the conviction and sincerity that Nancy Pelosi does:

"I disagree with the policy that took us to this war. I dispute some of the arguments used in favor of this resolution, and I am disappointed in some of the provisions in this resolution..."

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 23, 2003 07:55 AM