Billy Graham's biographer on Fox News

[wilkey]

[Mark Pepin]

[Mark Pepin]

[Norm]

Mark P: [...] I actually engaged ... Norm, and was prepared to follow suit ... and [he hasn't] come back to request any more info. I think that [he] began to think better of it, because [he] probably recognized that the "study" wasn't so professional afterall ....

Norm: Actually, Norm has been out of town, and now that he is back, he wonders if Mark P will engage the study and explain why it is not (or is not "so") professionally prepared/conducted, if he (i.e., Mark P) so thinks.

[Ed Pettibone]

[mlovell]

Here's the Pepin said he couldn't find.

And .



And a relevant

For your reading pleasure.

[Mark Pepin]

[Mark Pepin]

[mlovell]

[bobfrgsn]

[Mark Pepin]

[Mark Pepin]

[bobfrgsn]

[Norm]

Ok, here's my take on the "Fox News 'Bias' study": The Bias study is biased.

First, let's examine the considerations of the study. Why was it felt necessary to make such a study? What was the impetus for the study? Those questions can best be revealed by an examination of the questions which were asked and studied. Those questions were centered on the War with Iraq, and asked clearly from the perspective of one on the left.

Among other things, PIPA/KN probed respondents for key perceptions and beliefs as well for their attitudes on what US policy should be. In the course of doing this, it was discovered that a substantial portion of the public had a number of misperceptions … (p.1).

I say that because someone on the right would not be as concerned with the answers to those questions, being satisfied that the war was/is justified.

Funding the research was the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

The War with Iraq has its defenders and it has its detractors. Its defenders are primarily conservative, and primarily Republican. Its detractors are primarily liberal, and primarily Democrat. That's no accident, as it's a result of world-views.

There is inconclusive evidence available to answer many of the questions, which means that any answers cannot be TRUTHFULLY assessed as having comportance with the truth. Therefore, the study is bogus, because it cannot assess comparisons to what is unknown.

The study states that it uses the findings of the US intelligence community and then measures the perceptions of people against these findings. Are you working with a different set of findings? The US intelligence community has said that there is not evidence to support the view that Iraqw was directly involved in September 11 and there has clearly never been any observable “conclusive evidence (p.1).”

As an example, the study titled, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War", PIPA stated that
"Before the war [started] overwhelming majorities believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction......However, a striking misperception occurred after the war, when the US failed to find any weapons of mass destruction or even any solid evidence of a WMD program."

Did we find WMDs, Mark? PIPA/KN asked people if we did, many said yes, however, we have not found WMDs. For what reason is PIPA/KN faulted for reporting what people think or thought in relation to what the US intelligence community has shared with us?

It is such blatant misappropriation of fact that makes this study, and others from PIPA concerning partisan issues such as this, suspect.

Blatant? Where are those WMDs, Mark?

To actually state that there isn't "any solid evidence of a WMD program" is to mislead others into actually thinking that there had NEVER BEEN ONE. That insinuation is absurd, considering that no one in the intelligence community could be found to support such a belief.

Let’s deal with what the report stated, shall we? Before the war overwhelming majorities believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Though it now appears this belief may have been correct, it does not seem appropriate to call this a misperception because it was so widespread at the time, even within the intelligence community (p.4).

Most of our representatives, and the intelligence community stated unequivocally that those WMD's or their programs were existent in Iraq. I'm not suddenly compelled to call all those people mistaken.

Yes, that is correct, see above comment. Are you inclined to now call the intelligence community into question now that it indicates no WMDs?

It is clear that PIPA is ideologically driven by politics of the left, and is not able to conduct bipartisan studies with any degree of confidence. They are worse than Fox could ever hope to be.

And your support is? Let’s see who uses PIPA and KN in order that we may further assess their credibility and integrity:

KN - Our customers include academic researchers from Duke University, Harvard University, MIT, New York University, Stanford University, UCLA, and the University of California, Irvine, as well as Federal agencies such as the CDC, the Census Bureau, and EPA through collaborations with the Research Triangle Institute, the Resources for the Future, Stratus Consulting, and with university-based principal investigators. We partner with the Program on International Policy Attitudes for public opinion research on foreign policy issues, and conduct surveys of seniors for AARP.

Moreover, Knowledge Networks was founded in 1998 by two prominent Stanford University professors seeking to develop research methodologies for the next century. Their company quickly grew into a leading consumer insight provider, with numerous Fortune 500 clients. Posting average annual growth of about 75% over the past two years, Knowledge Networks is now among the top 25 U.S. research firms in terms of revenue (http://www.knowledgenetworks.com).

In 2000, KN acquired Promotion Decisions, Inc., one of the most respected and innovative providers of promotion research. The next year, Statistical Research - the leader in high-quality media research - became a KN company. These two research practices contribute strongly to KN's capabilities while retaining the qualities that made them eminently successful in their own right.

PIPA of CISSM - The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) is a research center that pursues policy-oriented scholarship on major issues facing the United States in the global arena. Established in 1987, CISSM is based at the Maryland School of Public Policy. The Center seeks to enliven and broaden the campus debate on international issues by involving faculty, students, and visiting scholars from a wide range of disciplines, and by sponsoring lectures and the CISSM Forum. CISSM also reaches beyond the University to the policy world, working through its research, conferences, and publications to improve communications between scholars and practitioners. The Center is composed of full-time staff, research scholars, visiting scholars and graduate research fellows. Many of our members are also professors in the Maryland School of Public Affairs. The Center also hosts visiting researchers from the United States and around the world. Past fellows have studied nonproliferation, ethnic conflict, congressional-executive relations in the foreign policy arena, U.S. security policy toward Asia, Korean unification, NATO enlargement, and many other topics. Since the Center's founding, its research agenda has encompassed a range of issues, including the use of traditional security instruments - such as arms control, peacekeeping, and the use of force - in the post-Cold War context; the nexus between international economics and security; cooperation and conflict between the United States and its allies; and the process of foreign policymaking, including the role of particular institutions and the impact of public attitudes. Current projects include the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Project, which includes the Controlling Dangerous Pathogens Project; the National Intelligence Council Project on the Evolution of the Nation-state; the National Security Council and U.S. Foreign Policymaking; the Jerusalem Project; and the Project on a New U.S.-European Dialogue. Over the years, CISSM has sponsored such research projects as the Nuclear History Program; Economics and National Security; the Project on Rethinking Arms Control; the Maryland-Tsukuba Project on U.S.-Japan Relations; and the Project on Foreign Policy and the Public (http://www.cissm.umd.edu/about.htm).

One of the biggest flaws in the study is the focus on this statement: "The frequency of American's misperceptions varies signficantly depending on their source of news." Well, DUHHHHH!!!!

Is it a flaw if the numbers support the statement? Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three misperpeptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however, the average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR the average rate was 32%. This same pattern obtains with Democrats and independents (p.15). Or consider this finding: ... 78% of Bush supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Queda, but only 50% of Bush supporters in the PBS and NPR audience thought this (p. 19).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that someone who reads and believes the Bible will have a different perception of the world than those who don't. Why should this be any different for which news outlets people choose to listen to/regard? While I enjoy listening to PBS radio OCCASSIONALY, I cannot stomach the constant leftist barrage of propaganda that effuses from their radio waves.

Let’s stay focused, Mark P, and work with the report, not whether you like or dislike PBS.

The fact is, Iraq did have WMD's, and used them on their own people. They had a program to develop nuclear weapons. Thank God, Israel destroyed their reactor back in 1981, but this only set Saddam back 10 years or so. He was determined to continue.

Losing focus, again, Mark P. Let me remind you again of the three perceptions measured: 1) Was there a link between Iraq and Al Queda, 2) Did US find WMDs, and 3) Did US have a proper understanding of world opinion on the war.

The questions are misleading, as well. The study says that "Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said that they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support." You can count me in those percentages.

This question gave four options on the supposed Iraq-al-Queda linkage:

1) directly involved in 9/11 (22%)
2) Iraq gave support but not involved in 9/11 (35%)
3) a few al-Queda individuals visited Iraqi … officials (30%)
4) no connection at all (7%)

Is it this misleading to have options? Seems misperception is “all over the place” if our intelligence community is to be believed. From the report: Since the war, this perception has been essentially unchanged (p.3).

The questions mislead, because even though there is insufficient evidence to DIRECTLY tie Iraq with 9/11, there is sufficient evidence to show that Saddam diretly supported terrorism, and may even likely have directly supported the deplorable acts of 9/11. In any event, Saddam's direct support of terrorism had an indirect support of the events of 9/11.

That’s fine, Mark P, to think like this, for such is the belief of 30-55% of the people polled. Unlike previous surveys, people did not have an opportunity to nuance their response as they did with this one. Your beef is not with the study, rather it is with the US intelligence community that has not demonstrated a direct link.

Now, I am still awaiting a coherent argument that the study is bogus, not professionally prepared/conducted, and that it is partisan.

[Mark Pepin]

[bobfrgsn]

[Mark Pepin]

[Mark Pepin]

[Norm]

[wilkey]