The Coffeespy

The Washington Post published an Associated Press analysis of the plan to surge about 20,000 troops to Iraq.  The piece is accompanied by a picture showing the president standing alone, head down, a stark dark figure against a white wall.  My initial reaction was one of sympathy, but I’m fairly certain that wasn’t the intention of the Post who published this in their caption:

Bush once reportedly told lawmakers he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side - and he’s getting close.

The analysis is based on an AP-Ipsos poll.  The sample was 1,002 adults with a margin of error allegedly at 3.1.  I say allegedly because you run into a few problems at the end where we start looking at demographics.  For example, the poll reports their employment breakdown to be:

• Total Employed: 60
• Not Employed: 15
• Retired: 23
• Refused to Answer: 2

This gives us an unemployment rate of 15% if you include retirees, which the official numbers don’t.  Using only available workforce (total employed+total unemployed+refused to answer, just in case) you get an unemployment rate of 19%.  Given that the official number is 4.5%, you can make a pretty good case that the sample chosen by the AP-Ipsos poll is nothing like a true profile of the nation.  Compare the AP-Ipsos demographic sample results with the US Census 2000 numbers.  They don’t jive.

So you have a poll of people in a skewed sample passed off as “the nation” to your average reader.  Well, your average reader doesn’t like being at odds with “the nation” so they start looking for why “the nation” feels this way.  Open up any day’s Washington Post or New York Times and you’ll find an avalanche of articles on why you should feel like “the nation.”  Many of them based on the same faulty premises as this AP-Ipsos poll.

Why, then, is the AP analysis in the WaPo able to say this:

Moderate Democrats who had the president’s back on the war are jumping ship. The din of disapproval is heard even among some conservative Republicans. The time when only a few GOP lawmakers gingerly would criticize the president’s leadership on the war has given way to the kind of no-holds-barred rhetoric heard the day after Bush’s Wednesday night speech.

The problem is leadership.  The problem is:

“The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a presidential aspirant and persistent war critic.

The problem is your elected representatives not taking advantage of their staffs and access to DoD information and forecasting before they open their mouths and reinforce the garbage they read in the WaPo and other papers.  If they did, they’d know that pulling our sons and daughters out of Iraq means sending in our grandsons and granddaughters at a date to be determined.  Or it means sitting back and letting the United States become Israel v2.0.

When the country needs leadership the most, all I hear are President Bush and John McCain.  Most Democrats are carping in anticipation of a White House victory in ‘08.  Now some Republicans are taking the same route and “joining that cool anti-war thing” the liberals have going.  They’re selling out their country’s future in an attempt to secure their own limited aspirations.

It’s sad.  It’s daunting.  With short-sighted windbags like Hagel and an army of print journalists propagandizing I worry about what will happen to my country.

• CommonSenseAmerica has chosen to talk about leadership today as well.  Murtha is in the crosshairs over in that neck of the woods.  Not surprisingly, John McCain’s name comes up in a blog post about real leadership.
• Blue Crab Boulevard speaks on a Pittsburg Review-Tribune article that worries Ted Kennedy’s handling of the surge proposal may degrade Hillary’s White House ambitions.  It leaves one wondering if the Dems are concentrating on the nation’s success or their own.
• The Left Coaster has an analysis I don’t agree with, but it is worthy of reading and thinking on.  Again, McCain’s name comes up.  Inadvertantly, it supports my point.  The Left Coaster believes McCain is sinking his chances as an ‘08 run by endorsing this plan.  There’s a very strong possibility that’s correct.  The point is: McCain’s doing it anyway because he wants the nation to succeed.  THAT’S a leader.
• Red State points out the 180 degree turn fair-weather politicians have made in DC.  Check out the link at the bottom for the Pelosi-Hokey-Pokey.  You put your 2-cents in, you take your 2-cents out…

One of the reasons I’m usually not considered a traditional conservative is my libertarian take on most social issues, abortion being one of them.  I’m from the camp that abortion is a choice open to a woman.  That said, I hope a woman is moral enough to make the right choice.  I’m not so much for a woman’s choice as I am against having an option legislated away.  Being a man, I take a man’s view that the ‘he’ portion of the equation should have some say but until there is an alternative to a responsibility-bankrupt possessor of a womb, they get their say over it.  Basically, a person has a right as an American to be a morally-vacuous prick.  I’ll tolerate you (meaning I won’t destroy you, NOT that I’ll accept you) but I’ll also let you know what a waste of life I think you are… that sort of thing.

What the pro-choice crowd (another term I’m not going to debate, I’m using it so we can at least talk about it) doesn’t need is crap like the NY Times piece covered by Michelle Malkin.  Rather than talk about the founding fathers’ desire to keep government out of the private lives of people, the Times has decided to create a sensationalized piece based on sources they know will have biased reporting.  Malkin covers the particulars in her usual thorough and witty style.

Which is worse, I wonder: a journalist using a real source they know to be lying or a journalist using a source that, well, looks like they made up?  The New York Times can use the terms like “experts” and “officials” without letting the reader know they’re taking a slant by covering slanted sources while the AP is made to look like morons because, after “investigating” allegations, they still haven’t produced an Iraqi police captain who has managed to source several stories.  The Winds of Change has a new update (or lack thereof) on the APs re-imagining of “Car 54, Where Are You?” set to an Iraqi backdrop.  Bottom line: the AP defense is basically, “Shut up, na na na na na, I can’t hear you.”

The thing is, in both the abortion story and Iraq reporting, the press is actually hurting its own cause.  When they report versions of the facts, instead of the facts, people begin to question and debate the press instead of the issue.  The Ace of Spades says it quite well:

We do need a vigilant press in this country to press uncomfortable questions to those in power. But if the press itself continues indulging in the same deny and lie spin cycle as any other organization caught dirty, how can it act in this role?

I started this blog because what I read in the paper rarely stood up to scrutiny.  Having been a low-level journalist myself I know how it’s supposed to be written.  Gather facts.  Order the facts by importance.  Rewrite them in that order, editing for flow and cohesiveness.  End of story.  It’s not that hard.  If any jackass with an internet connection can refute professional press reporting, it’s time to turn that ever-watchful eye upon the watchers themselves.