posted December 15, 2005 02:22 AM            

Nothing really new here, just another case of the leftist press kicking Uncle Sam by failing to check their stories and their sources out. But then, they do want so badly to believe the worst about the United States and they want their readers to believe it too.

It's inexcusable...considering the AP had a reporter on the spot, embedded with the unit which was being accused, knew they had a reporter on the spot...but never bothered to check the facts of the allegations with him....because they wanted soooo badly to believe it was true.

Is it any wonder about 80% of those polled do not believe the AP is a credible news source...i.e., they print lies?

JIMMY MASSEY'S LIES: THE AP FINALLY WAKES UP
By Michelle Malkin · December 14, 2005 09:01 AM

More than a month after Ron Harris of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch exposed the fraudulent anti-war veteran Jimmy Massey's lies about alleged atrocities committed by him and his fellow Marines, the Associated Press has finally, finally acknowledged its own role in spreading Massey's unsubstantiated smears:

In a lengthy telephone interview with The Associated Press, Massey repeated his claim that his unit _ and he personally _ fired on the demonstrators. He said four were killed. He said his original estimate of 10 was inaccurate.
But reporters and a photographer who were embedded with the 3/7 say there is no evidence such a shooting happened _ indeed, no evidence that the Marines confronted any demonstrators so early in the war.

"There was certainly no organized protesting, no `Go home,' anything like that," said Ravi Nessman, an AP reporter who knew Massey while he was embedded with Weapons Company. "When (the Marines) were driving into central Baghdad, they were cheered."

"Things went bad much later," he said.

Ron Harris, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter whose November article called into question Massey's claims, said neither he nor any Marine he has interviewed remembers a protest.

"What demonstrators?" he asked in a phone interview. "It was almost like a parade atmosphere. People had been lining the streets for blocks to see these Marines drive by..."

As Harris had noted in his ground-breaking package, the AP had quoted Massey numerous times without interviewing Nessman, the wire service's own reporter embedded with Massey's unit:

The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.
But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press
reporter who was embedded with Massey's unit. Nessman wrote more than 30
stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after
Baghdad had fallen.

Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn't know why the reporters
didn't talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without
seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to
allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.

Now, AP admits its failures:

The Associated Press quoted Massey five times between May 2004 and October 2005 _ four times directly, and once citing a CBC report in which Massey said his unit had committed "cold-blooded, calculated murder."
In each case, Massey alleged his platoon had killed innocent civilians or committed atrocities against Iraqis. Two of the five stories included Marine Corps denials of Massey's allegations.

"Clearly our stories should have included the firsthand observations of our own embedded reporter," said AP Managing Editor Mike Silverman.

Thanks, Sherlock.

Meanwhile, the disgraceful Jimmy Massey marches on. This week, he's in Kuala Lampur for the Perdana Global Peace Forum:

“I have flashbacks and nightmares. I am not the same man I was before I went to Iraq. I don’t enjoy the activities I used to. I don’t like to go out of the house sometimes due to paranoia. My experiences (in Iraq) changed every single aspect of my life,” he said in an e-mail interview.
Massey has to take six different kinds of medication daily in order to function “somewhat normally...”

“I have made it my life’s mission to tell the people of America and abroad exactly what happened to me over in Iraq,” he added...

And it seems he'll always be able to find willing, anti-American enablers.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004073.htm

posted December 15, 2005 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Some here think the AP has a sterling reputation for reporting the truth.

---

Between the AP and NewsMax? Absolutely. Hands down more accurate. Bad testimony from one person doesn't discredit the hundreds of other articles printed in 8500 publications that were printed in this time period.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article itself lines out the argument on both sides rather adequately. This paper, incidentally, worships Pulitzer, and uses Pulitzer words as it's guiding principles.

posted December 15, 2005 02:48 PM            

We have gone over this, but don't let Jwhop fool you into thinking that only a quarter of what you read in mainstream news sources is true.

posted December 15, 2005 04:03 PM            

The articles under discussion here are relatively new. Long before the AP got caught as being enablers and associates in a lying slander campaign against the US military forces in Iraq, the public had already delivered their opinion about the believability of the Associated Press.

A quick review of their opinion finds even fewer believing the AP than believe the thoroughly discredited NY Times...18%...which means 82% do not believe the Associated Press

Again acoustic, you misstate both the results of the poll and my argument...deliberately and disingenuously it would seem.

quote:

---

don't let Jwhop fool you into thinking that only a quarter of what you read in mainstream news sources is true.....acoustic

---

No one but you is attempting to twist the results of the polls into a percentage of what they print being true...or false.

The poll itself and my comments to you...over and over and over acoustic is that using the best spin possible on the poll results, only about 20% of the people polled believe all or most of what the NY Times prints. It is nowhere being said that only 25% of what is printed is true.

posted December 15, 2005 04:32 PM              

for the ap its 58% in the top half and 42% in the lower half

posted December 15, 2005 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Long before the AP got caught as being enablers and associates in a lying slander campaign against the US military forces in Iraq, the public had already delivered their opinion about the believability of the Associated Press.

---

That's a funny statement considering what this site has to say about them:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Associated+Press

(The articles mostly state that the AP are omitting damning information about the GOP --damn leftists.)

quote:

---

which means 82% do not believe the Associated Press

---

This is a patently false assertion as we've gone over and over again.

quote:

---

Again acoustic, you misstate both the results of the poll and my argument...deliberately and disingenuously it would seem.

---

I've stated the results correctly since day one. It's YOU who's had to re-examine what you thought about the poll.

quote:

---

No one but you is attempting to twist the results of the polls into a percentage of what they print being true...or false.

---

(I'm gonna let a dumb@ss slip here) I merely used the percentage Lotus quoted, dumb@ss. With regard to your assertion, prove it. I've quoted my own words for you over and over. If you can't comprehend them, it's not my fault.

quote:

---

It is nowhere being said that only 25% of what is printed is true.

---

That is exactly what Lotus said, and that was what I was responding to. She got that impression from YOU, not from me. After all, it is YOU who's saying that this stuff is not to be believed, right?

posted December 15, 2005 05:31 PM            

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES
AND PRINCIPLES

For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source.

In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

It means we don't plagiarize.

It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.

It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

"I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it," wrote Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that "the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world's happenings … ethical in the highest degree."

He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today.

posted December 16, 2005 12:21 AM              

quote:

---

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article itself lines out the argument on both sides rather adequately. This paper, incidentally, worships Pulitzer, and uses Pulitzer words as it's guiding principles.

---

That's a rather odd way to talk about my hometown paper. Considering the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was Joseph Pulitzer's "baby", it definately has the reputation of being fair and unbiased. We're very blessed that the new owners out of Wisconsin, Lee Publishing, are continuing the tradition.
(Like I'm on the happy bandwagon for my favorite newspaper! )

I read this article the day it was published. Another interesting reminder about trusting any news source. I always think of Communist countries controlling the press-now look at our supposed "free press" and "inaccurate" press in the United States. Uck!!

------------------
Scorpio/Leo/Leo

posted December 16, 2005 02:11 AM            

It's commendable that the Post Dispatch is catching things like this. It makes perfect sense to me that the press would keep the press in check. That's part of the motivation for press to get it right the first time.

posted December 16, 2005 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

(I'm gonna let a dumb@ss slip here) I merely used the percentage Lotus quoted, dumb@ss. With regard to your assertion, prove it. I've quoted my own words for you over and over. If you can't comprehend them, it's not my fault....acoustic

---

Wow, you let a dumb@ss slip here.

You know acoustic, I always get a good chuckle when someone who is intellectually challenged comments on the intellectual development of others. Not only are you wrong about most of what you "say" you believe, you are unable to analyze the most elementary factual data. You are wrong about the thrust of the questions asked of respondents in the Pew Poll, you are wrong about what the poll results show and you are grossly wrong about what it all means. Three strikes and you're out acoustic...though I gave you many extra swings at the ball, you still struck out.

Oh yeah and screw THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

You may be impressed with lofty sounding words and self promotion acoustic, but I'm not. No more than I am with the professions of compassion for the Iraqi people leftists blather about.

posted December 16, 2005 10:29 PM            

One press liar tells a lie and the cast of thousands pick it up and repeat it.

September 03, 2004
The Associated Press Makes It Up

I've long said that the Associated Press is the nation's worst source of media bias. But this one, frankly, blows me away. It was first noted, I think, by Freepers and followed up on by Swimming Through the Spin, linked to by InstaPundit.

The AP ran this story:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."

A number of people who were at the rally and didn't hear any boos sent angry emails to the AP, which resulted in a rewrite of the story. If you follow the link to the original story, this is what you get. Nothing.

The AP put up a revised version which is exactly the same as the original, except that it omits the two sentences about the crowd booing and Bush "doing nothing to stop them." No explanation and, as of yet, no apology.

Meanwhile, someone came up with an audio of the President Bush's speech, which is linked to by Drudge. Listen to it here. The audio is stunning. When the President says that he's just received word that Clinton had been hospitalized, you can hear the crowd react with sympathy and dismay. When Bush goes on to say that President Clinton is in our thoughts and prayers, and we send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery, the crowd applauds and cheers enthusiastically. No booing. None.

Note that the AP didn't say "there were scattered boos" (there weren't) or even "one guy booed." The AP reported, falsely, that "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed." That isn't spin; it's a flat-out lie. And the AP writer added the malicious embellishment that Bush did nothing to stop the (nonexistent) booing.

Is this the most astonishing example of media bias I can remember? Offhand, yes. It is sheer, malicious fabrication and slander--of President Bush and of Republicans generally--in what purports to be a brief, factual account of Bush's speech.

What this shows, I guess, is that the establishment media are in a full panic mode over John Kerry's prospects. Any semblance of professionalism, or even basic honesty, in this instance, is gone.

The AP needs to do some serious soul-searching, and fire, at a minimum, the guy who wrote that story, if it wants to retain even a shred of credibility.

While I was typing this, video footage of the West Allis rally ws played on Fox News, but without any mention of the AP fabrication.

UPDATE: The AP's lie is spreading rapidly around the globe. Salon says: "Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." WSTM television in New York has a slightly different version of the story, with an AP copyright, which says: "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." WRIC television in northern Virginia has the same "many booed" story. In Iowa, KWWL television reports that "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." The same misinformation is being promulgated in Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, Indiana, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and New York again.

I'll stop there, but there are many more. Do you suppose that all of these news outlets will offer corrections? What proportion of the people who hear this story will ever find out that it was a complete lie, fabricated, apparently, by a Democrat who works for the AP?

The AP now has a new version, which says, more accurately: "The crowd reacted with applause and with some "ooohs," apparently surprised by the news that Clinton was ill."

This, folks, is a scandal. The blogosphere should not rest until the AP is brought to account.

FURTHER UPDATE: Editor & Publisher notes the AP's about-face:

The Associated Press changed "boos" to "ooohhs" Friday afternoon in reporting on President George Bush's first statement to supporters on the heart ailment that has befallen former President Bill Clinton.
In a dispatch sent to subscribers in early afternoon, the AP reported that when Bush, at a campaign rally in West Allis, Wisconsin, told the crowd that he wished to send Clinton his "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery," the audience "of thousands booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

Pretty damning, except that AP soon changed its story, only after the original appeared on many Web sites.

Several Web sites revealed that AP "retracted" the report "citing uncertainties about how to characterize the crowd's reaction."

The new version moved on the wire Friday described the same incident this way, after relating Bush's remarks: "The crowd reacted with applause and with some 'ooohs,' apparently surprised by the news that Clinton was ill."

A Knight Ridder/Tribune (KRT) report put it this way: "Some in Bush's audience booed when he wished Clinton well...." The AFP wire report declared that after Bush's statement "thousands of boisterous supporters clapped respectfully."

Which raises a possibility I hadn't thought of: perhaps the AP will try to sell the idea that its reporter mistook the crowd's "oohs" for "boos." All I can say is, listen to the audio. There is nothing on it that could possibly have been mistaken for booing. On the contrary, as the AFP correctly reorted, the crowd "clapped respectfully"; I would add that many cheered.

The Knight-Ridder correspondent's claim that "some in Bush's audience booed" was new to me. A quick Google search indicates that seventeen newspapers around the country, including a number of major ones, have printed a report by Knight-Ridder correspondent Seth Borenstein that includes this statement:

Both President Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wished the former president well during campaign appearances. Some in Bush's audience booed when he wished Clinton well, while those in Kerry's cheered.
Again, the audio of the Bush rally discloses not a single boo. Borenstein's formula is trickier, in a way, than the AP's crude lie, because if Borenstein says he heard someone in the crowd boo, his claim is impossible to disprove. But as a characterization of the Bush audience's response to the news of Clinton's hospitalization, it is a contemptible misrepresentation.

I have emailed Mr. Borenstein to ask him to explain the basis for his characterization of the Bush audience's response. His email address is sborenstein@krwashington.com. He can be reached here. You might consider doing the same.

HERE'S MORE: Glenn Reynolds notes that the name of the AP reporter who wrote the false report is Tom Hays. His byline has been pulled from the article by the AP, apparently to protect him. Still no retraction or apology from the AP, just a silent change in the article. I haven't been able to find Tom Hays' email address. If anyone can come up with it, let me know. Maybe we can open a dialogue with him, sort of like we did with Jim Boyd.

AND THIS: Some news outlets have started correcting the false stories they distributed yesterday. For instance, WCCO, one of the main Twin Cities news stations, revised its story on the West Allis rally. Instead of just silently changing the story like the AP, however, WCCO made it clear that the original story was wrong, with this correction:

NOTE: This is a correction to an incorrect story posted by AP on Friday stating the crowd booed the President when he sent his good wishes. The crowd, in fact, did NOT boo.
Good for WCCO. Now, let's find Mr. Hays.

posted December 16, 2005 10:37 PM            

September 04, 2004
AP Turns Cheers Into Boos, And Now Everybody Knows Their Name

My Northern Alliance colleague and fellow RNC blogger Hindrocket from Power Line notes a horrendous example of media bias that should shock anyone who reads the news. The Associated Press, one of the primary resources of the mainstream news media, deliberately reported false news regarding Republican reaction to Bill Clinton's emergency bypass operation to make GOP supporters and George Bush look petty and mean-spirited:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."

I bolded the two sentences because if you read the AP's update, it disappeared without any explanation. Unfortunately, it was too late to keep the original report to show up in the print media, meaning if you read the newspapers, you're going to see the original and false story. Fortunately, Drudge carries the audio from the event proving that the story is completely false.

We've been used to the press reporting selectively on issues in order to make John Kerry look good and George Bush look bad. We've watched while the press ignored the Christmas in Cambodia mythology that Kerry spewed for three decades until the blogosphere finally forced them to report it. We've sat back and fumed while the press has made excuse after excuse for Kerry's collapsing campaign during this past month.

But this is far too outrageous for people to sit quietly by. It's one thing to report selectively; it's something completely different to write fiction and pass it off as news. The Associated Press has apparently decided to trade in its credibility with news readers and media sources in order to libel George Bush and a group of people who reacted in a most human and sympathetic fashion to the news of a political opponent's ill health.

posted December 17, 2005 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

though I gave you many extra swings at the ball, you still struck out.

---

I can't believe you'd even make an attempt to say something like this after all the times I've buried you.

As I recall it was you who had to take a massive break (run away) after getting beaten down by me on the subject of NewsMax and journalistic integrity. You think you got a sure thing in this Pew thing, but I've demostrated in quite a few ways now how you're fundamentally wrong and unable to consider the facts in this regard.

The facts are these:

-3,000 people took part in the poll. We know this is .003% of a rounded down number of just the people who decided to vote in the last presidential election (3000/100,000,000= .00003)(we know this is only 60% of those eligible to vote). This is hardly a justifiable amount of people to get any accurate, across-the-board data on.

-Not everyone pays attention to all the news sources, so now we're dealing with even less than 3,000 people for many of these opinions.

-Republicans have a clear vendetta against mainstream media. Even the Pew Research Center obviously alluded to that.

-Polls are based on opinion - not fact. Nowhere during the polling was it ever suggested that any person should back up their opinion with evidence. No one was pressed for the basis of their opinion whatsoever.

I KNOW you can't refute a single one of these facts, so your trying to claim victory is at best premature and at worst a gross inaccuracy. Considering the lapses of logic we've consistently seen from you, I think we can safely say the latter is more true.

posted December 17, 2005 01:07 AM            

I love the righteous tone of that article. OOOOH... shame shame... bad press...

It's ALWAYS amazing to me the lack of critical thinking involved in things like this.

Let me quote a part of this for you:

quote:

---

Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York.

---

Now...how can ANYONE reconcile booing by thousands of people within earshot of a microphone at a George W. Bush campaign rally? It just doesn't happen. Everyone knows their campaign was very particular about who would be allowed to attend his rallys. Everyone also knows that Bush rallys are attended by ardent Bush supporters. It just doesn't make logical sense that anyone would boo when Bush says something nice.

posted December 17, 2005 02:33 AM            

You seem to think you are winning an argument but there is no argument. The facts are unassailable and anyone can read the poll, read the question asked respondents, understand the respondents were being asked about the believability of the various news sources, see how the respondents broke out, percentage wise from 4 down to 1, tabulate the percentages in 3, 2, and 1 and quickly discern that about 80% of respondents DO NOT believe all or even most of what the NY Times prints. The Associated Press is believed even less.

Now acoustic, listen up and listen well. Most is a break line word indicating a majority of whatever is being discussed. A quantifier, meaning the greater or greatest number of.....

Let me make this as simple as I can for you acoustic.

There are 100 people; they are all wearing shirts. Some are wearing red shirts and some are wearing blue shirts. All 100 people are wearing either red shirts or blue shirts. If 51 people are wearing red shirts, then most people are wearing red shirts.

We cannot know what the spread of believability was for the group of 21% who fell into category 4 but we can know they believed at least most of what the NY Times prints.

It's a different story for those placing themselves in categories 3, 2, and 1. Not one of those people believed even most of what the NY Times prints. All of those people believed less than most dwindling down to little or nothing the NY Times prints. That's 79% of all those polled about the believability of the NY Times and they all believed less than most of what the NY Times prints.

It has been posited that the 50% believability point falls between category 3 and category 2. That is incorrect. If these news outlets were being scored on a percentage of believability, the 50% break line would fall between category 4 and category 3.

It is a dire problem for a news outlet when 80% of the people do not believe even most of what they print or broadcast and it's even worse for the press as a whole when those ratings are more or less uniform across the broad spectrum of news outlets.

The fact you don't understand the consequences for the press these numbers indicate is a testament to your lack of analytical ability. Even the brain dead morons of the press get it and they're in full panic mode at corporate headquarters.

Perception is what the press is all about acoustic. Perception is what the press is attempting to create and it's a delicious irony that the sword of perception is cutting both ways now and cutting them off at their toenails.

One last thing acoustic. Unlike you, I actually have a life so, when I'm not here, it means I'm engaged in a pursuit more pleasurable than boiling you in the oil of logic and reason.

posted December 17, 2005 05:04 AM            

But anyways...

Should I start with the short answer or the long answer?

The short answer is that the numbers don't lie, and the AP is huge and it's everywhere. Pretty undeniable. They don't need me defending them against someone who can't put together a good argument to the contrary.

Now for the long bit:

--------------------------------
ISSUE 1: Big Picture Vs. Small Picture

What you don't seem to grasp is that you can't deny ANY of the arguments I made. No one can, because they are basic essential truth. If you could refute what I've said, you would, but you can't so you also can't win this.

You can point out the data presented in the poll all you want it doesn't change the facts that I've pointed out. I'm looking at the big picture. You're looking at the small picture. The big picture is that a poll is made of OPINIONS, the small picture is that those opinions somehow translate to an extrapolated fact (that a particular news source is not credible because a person's OPINION says it is so), which is an impossible feat at least as far as logic is concerned.

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

ISSUE 2: What you've said in error this time

Your attempt at a point distinguishing 51% as the benchmark for the term "most" is not one that Pew specifically advocates:

quote:

---

Now, I'm going to read a list. Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1? (INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "NEVER HEARD OF" AND "CAN'T RATE")

---

They don't qualify the term "most" in the way you do, and logically most people taking the poll would assume they were putting their OPINION on a scale of 1 to 4 with no specific definitions for what 2 or 3 mean.

Also, as a person who has rated things on scales before, I realize the tendency to be conservative. Most people don't want to be extreme in an opinion. As such 3s down the line got the most votes. To me that translates to, "I believe them, but I don't feel strongly enough about them to give them my whole-hearted devotion."

This being the case you have once again misrepresented the data you're trying to make your case with.

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

quote:

---

Even the brain dead morons of the press get it and they're in full panic mode at corporate headquarters.

---

Such a sensationalist!! Yeah...I think not.

----------------------------
Parting Thought:

posted December 17, 2005 09:42 AM              

80% is lies, and that's a low percent it's probably up to 98% of Americans not believeing the Press and what the Government is doing
we are in the Dark, clueless
as you keep showing US