Facts?
Depends on whether you read articles, or only headlines. Depends on whether you apply critical thinking when you read the newspaper.
That USA Today headline:
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
The second paragraph: Sixty-nine percent in a
Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.
Follow along with me. The headline word
70% was actually
69%. (Next year, it'll be 75%.) The headline word
believe was actually the poll result "is likely". Critical thinkers will notice that "is likely" is a good step short of "belief".
The article really fails to mention much about the methodology of the poll, except that 100% of responses were from people willing to answer the phone. Still, one might imagine a poll question: "On whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on 9/11, do you think this is very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely, or very likely?"
In 2003, one could imagine 69% casually answering in one of the two "likely" columns even while having a sophisticated understanding of the matter. But even "very likely" falls short of "belief".
Lastly, this paragraph tells us the writer is flailing to write the most anti-administration article possible:
Quote:
|
Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.
|
"Veteran pollsters say" followed by a complicated narrative having little to do with the poll. Could the writer be more transparent? Who are these veteran pollsters? It all sounds roughly scientific, as if we are dealing with "facts" here -- but isn't it obviously just a flimsy pretext for the writer to throw out a bunch of conjecture?