Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 5, 2002

The saga of the New York Times' attempts to manipulate public opinion continues, this time with the paper trying to prove that most supporters of President Bush disagree with his policy on regime change in Iraq – a conclusion refuted by NewsMax.com's online polls, which show as many as 90 percent of Americans back Bush's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

As reported by NewsMax July 12, the Times used the same tactic in an attempt to show that the public is opposed to arming airline pilots in the cockpit when polls showed exactly the opposite. (See: N.Y. Times Tries to Manipulate Public Opinion on Arming Pilots.)

As NewsMax noted at the time, the "citadel of 'mainstream' media once again proved just how biased it can be, especially in pursuit of the liberal agenda."

The tactic involves sending one of its liberal reporters out to question people about their opinions on an important issue. By hook or crook, the Times apparently always manages to find a majority who agree with its own left-wing anti-Bush opinions.

This time they sent one Michael Janofsky to what the Times described as "solid Bush country, an upscale Phoenix suburb where the favorite flavor of Republican is conservative and independents lean to the right."

In an article titled "Backing Bush All the Way, Up to but Not Into Iraq," Janofsky reports that he conducted a massive 24 interviews over two days, and while he uncovered "some people favoring a strike against Mr. Hussein to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies, "many more argued against an American offensive."

He also made the startling discovery, "Democrats and political independents interviewed were nearly unanimous in their opposition to an invasion," adding that "most Republicans felt the same way."

The Times reporter also took pains to add that "people interviewed" were unhappy with the Bush administration's failure to come up with sound reasons for launching an attack against "a country the president has said is part of 'an axis of evil.' "

Not remarkably, this egregiously slanted poll was able to find only one person out of the 24 subjects interviewed who back the president on Iraq. One single person in this alleged hotbed of conservative Republicanism.

"While several people said they would back administration plans if more information convinced them the cause was just, only one expressed unconditional support for military action," Janofsky reported with what we assume was a straight face.

Finding Just the Right Sample

Wrote an irate Andrew Sullivan on AndrewSullivan.com: "When opinion polls show overwhelming support for the war against Iraq, how does the New York Times find a sample in which only one person out of dozens feels that way?"

Said Sullivan, editor of the New Republic and a vocal critic of the Times under the editorship of ultra-left-winger Howell Raines, "The only conceivable answer is that the reporter was simply told to find opponents of war and write his story on those lines."

Understanding why the Times went to such an effort to create the utterly false impression that a majority of Republicans oppose the Bush Iraq policy is simple. All one needs to do is read the editorial that appeared in the same issue of the "paper of record" that attempts to separate 9-11 from the case of Iraq, thus taking it out of the context of the war on terrorism, which enjoys near-universal support among Americans.

"One argument for war often floated by officials ought to be disposed of quickly. Military action against Iraq may be justified, but not in response to the terrorism of Sept. 11 or Al Qaeda. To date there is no reliable evidence that Baghdad had any serious connection to either. The dangers posed by Iraq have more to do with protecting American interests in the Middle East than with warding off fresh terrorist attacks on American cities," the Times editorialized.

All of which, wrote Sullivan "is preposterous. The only reason invading Iraq is being discussed at all is because of September 11 and what it taught us."

It's more than preposterous, Andrew. It's downright shameful. But that's what we've learned to expect from the once great New York Times since it became a socialist Democrat propaganda organ.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
Bush Administration
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News