Just One Minute
Balanced Fare: We Report, You Deride

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Screaming Media Bias At The "Dovish" NY Times

As a goad to their friiends on the left, the Times gives this headline to their story about a recent CBS/NY Times poll:

Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds

Americans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.

OK, that was the headline and lead. But pressing on, the next paragraph delivers this surprise:

But a majority of respondents, 52 percent, say inspectors should be given more time to search for evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons on the ground in Iraq. Still, that number has dropped over the past month, and there has been an increase in the number of Americans who say the United States has done enough to find a diplomatic solution in Iraq.

Well, then, here is the headline that could have been:

Give Inspectors More Time, Survey Finds

Despite a strong diplomatic and public relations effort, the Bush Administration has failed to convince a majority of Americans that time is running out for Saddam...

Over at CBS, we have this account of the same poll:

Poll: Losing Patience With The U.N.

Americans may be growing frustrated with the United Nations and its progress in conducting weapons inspections in Iraq. Although a majority of Americans still favor giving weapons inspectors more time, the figure is lower than seen in previous polls.

Support for U.S. military action remains high, though less than half believe the U.S. should move ahead if France, Russia or China uses its veto power to block a U.S.-sponsored resolution in the Security Council.

OK, better, but still lacking the full lefty tilt that the facts could have supported. Very interesting.

Comments: Post a Comment