It was interesting to note that in America, evidently the highest rated source scored just 11%, far below the other countries mentioned in the article.  So evidently the diversity of places where American's get their news is far greater than other countries, and I would expect, far different than what it was 25 years ago.

Second, technically "Fox News" means the Fox cable channel.  There is a Fox station that has become competitive with the traditional TV channels of ABC, NBC, and CBS.  So I'm wondering if there is some double counting here.  It's just very surprising to me to see in the US any cable channel, much less Fox News, leading all communication channels on anything.

Americans totally trusted the "big 3" TV channels 35 years ago.  But, IMHO, Americans have accepted that a number of big, highly visible news bungling have happened--such as Dan Rather's story on the letter about Bush's National Guard which appears to have been a forgery, and IMO this has been accepted by many Americans, with the resulting loss of trust from 35 years ago, when one really believed everything Walter Cronkite, for example, said.

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/5/2/224615/3141  

Seems silly to have the same conversation on two diaries, even if this one is more thoroughly fleshed-out...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir here, but this was a specifically desired outcome of the Bush administration. It underscores one of the reasons I think democracy has some dark days ahead here in the US and elsewhere - the public as a whole does not have tools to effectively deal with modern propaganda.

you are the media you consume.

However this is what Bernard Finel, Professor of Military Strategy and Operations, National War College said:

There are a lot of questions about the Zogby/Le Moyne poll. Let me first say, that all I have seen are press reports/press releases. I have not had time to look at the methodology closely.

Zogby keeps it secret for "security reasons", which I think is nonsense. See link to Mystery Pollster above.

But clearly, if the study was well-conducted and the results accurate, the results are troubling. There are several issues to consider.
First, for reasons that are not clear to me, the Bush Administration has been extremely sloppy and fuzzy in defining the relationship between Iraq and the war on terror/9-11/AQ. Clearly, we went into Iraq in part because one of the lessons of 9-11 was to eliminate threats before they come to fruition, but I think that the Administration has deliberately left that vague and has, as a result, convinced a lot of Americans that Iraq was somehow behind 9-11. Critics, though, who claim the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 also miss the boat on the connection through changing levels of risk acceptance.
Second, I have the deepest respect for our men and women in uniform. They are committed, patriotic, hard-working, and in many ways genuinely altruistic. But there is no particular reason, ultimately, to assume that they necessarily know any more about international politics than anyone else.
Third, does it matter if our troops are essentially misguided on some key issues? Really, probably not. Our troops do not make policy. And there is no evidence that I know of that the belief that Saddam was behind 9-11 has affected the behavior of troops in Iraq (in the sense, for instance of unlawful reprisals against Iraqi civilians).
Fourth, is this in some ways inevitable. If you are a young person, living in Iraq, risking your life, losing friends, and so on.... you need to construct a world view that will sustain you. You can't go into combat doubting yourself or your comrades or the justice of your cause. You need to know you are doing the right thing. This has been true of all militaries at all times in history. So perhaps we ought to see these poll results as less in terms of politics, and more in terms of the sociology of armed forces in war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/01/DI2006030100953.html

Interesting comments!

However, I don't think 85% of US servicemen and -women are so stupid that they believe the US is in Iraq to "retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks."

I think we need a second poll from a different pollster before we can blame them.


Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni