Public clueless about U.S. death toll in Iraq...

[PressCoverage]

Yet more evidence that the media isn't inherently "anti-Bush" nor "liberally biased" at all... and is, in fact, quite complicit:


Public, media losing sight of Iraq, study finds

Only 28 percent know that nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed

...

Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.

Related Pew surveys have found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.

<snippet>

"We try not to make any causal statements about the relationship between the absence of news and what the public knows," Keeter said. "But there's certainly a correlation between the two. People are not seeing news about fatalities, and there isn't much in the news about the war, whether it be military action or even political discussion related to it."

<snip>

All education levels in the recent survey were similarly uninformed, Keeter said. The Pew "Political Knowledge Update" was based on nationwide telephone interviews of 1,003 adults conducted Feb. 28 through March 2.

[DarrylS]

Too many distractions.. the dem primaries, Spitzer, price of gas, people just getting by, foreclosures, increased price of food etc..

[PressCoverage]

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

Too many distractions.. the dem primaries, Spitzer, price of gas, people just getting by, foreclosures, increased price of food etc..

Yeah, it's like a wag the dog mutation of the worst kinds.

[Real World]

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Yet more evidence that the media isn't inherently "anti-Bush" nor "liberally biased" at all... and is, in fact, quite complicit:

.

Yeah, the media has been under reporting Iraq over the last 4-5 years actually. I sure don't call you Agenda boy for nothing. This isn't indicitive of the media being complicit. It's illustrative of the American public not caring to the level you do.

[PressCoverage]

Originally Posted by Real World

Yeah, the media has been under reporting Iraq over the last 4-5 years actually. I sure don't call you Agenda boy for nothing. This isn't indicitive of the media being complicit. It's illustrative of the American public not caring to the level you do.

Would you like to have at it in a new thread regarding the media's overall role before and during the Iraq occupation? Please do suggest they're entirely liberal; I'd thoroughly enjoy taking you on with examples quite the contrary.

Shall we?

[Real World]

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Would you like to have at it in a new thread regarding the media's overall role before and during the Iraq occupation? Please do suggest they're entirely liberal; I'd thoroughly enjoy taking you on with examples quite the contrary.

Shall we?

You think I want to waste my time with lather, rinse, repeat? Quick, does the earth revolve around the sun, or vice versa?

[Wildo7]

The media isn't liberal or conservative, it's corporate. When it's popular to be liberal, they will oblige, but when ratings demand a conservative stance they will pander to that also.

[Stokes]

PC, forget about if they know casualty figures, what percent can even identify Iraq on a map? I don't think this result is necesarily indicative of the media underreporting on casualties in Iraq, more about the public just not caring about anything outside of their lives.