Iraqi opinions
| 10:43 UK time, Monday, 19 March 2007
The difficulties and dangers of reporting what鈥檚 happening in Iraq are well known. The 大象传媒 has done better than most at chronicling events in the four years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 鈥 not least by maintaining a presence in Baghdad throughout that time, something few other media organisations have been prepared to do. But it鈥檚 a constant frustration that we can鈥檛 travel freely throughout the country, reflecting the different experiences of ordinary Iraqis in their own villages and neighbourhoods.
Carrying out opinion polls in Iraq, like , is an effective way of addressing that problem. This is the third poll we鈥檝e commissioned in partnership with ABC News of America and other media organisations. Like the last two, it鈥檚 thrown up a wealth of fascinating detail about the views of the Iraqi people and the circumstances in which they live.
What emerges is a genuine nationwide picture. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 villages and neighbourhoods in every province of Iraq. Each of them answered more than 50 questions about their personal circumstances and their hopes for the years ahead.
, at the end of 2005, found them generally hopeful about the future 鈥 about improved security and the government they were about to vote into office.
The story this time is one of disappointment and disillusion. Most people feel the new government has delivered little in terms of basic essentials like access to electricity, fuel or fresh water, and lacks the will to take the decisions that will make a genuine difference. Security, or lack of it, remains a key concern. Although the presence of coalition forces is detested, most people think they should stay until some of these things have improved.
This time, we鈥檝e been able to break the figures down to compare the responses given by the Sunni and Shia people who took part in the poll. The results are striking. On a whole range of important issues, we see diametrically opposing views.
Attitudes to the execution of Saddam Hussein offer a good example of this polarisation. Asked whether it was appropriate and was helpful to the future of Iraq, opinion was more or less evenly divided. But the breakdown on religious lines shows that almost all Shias think it was helpful and almost all Sunnis think it wasn鈥檛.
There鈥檚 some very rich material in the detail of the poll findings. Taken together, they make a significant contribution to our continuing efforts to report this important but uniquely demanding story.
Comments
"The 大象传媒 has done better than most at chronicling events in the four years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein" Who are you trying to fool !!! The 大象传媒 as a Government body has deeply failed the license fee payers. Most of your best journalists have left for Al-Jazeera. As Part of the occupying force you have followed the government line at every turn. After the firing of Greg Dyke the 大象传媒 questioned nothing. For those who want information on Iraq the best place to look is Blogs. Today in Iraq and Iraqslogger are both fine examples of how modern news reporting has changed. Please state the total the 大象传媒 has spent on the coverage of the Iraq war over the last 4 years.
Some body today in 大象传媒 new during showing some places in IRAQ, Kurdistan showing an escalator mentioning that this escalator 鈥漨ay be the only the escalator in Iraq鈥
I would like to mentioned for the general knowledge and more education that Iraq has allot of escalator in the seventies in most of the tunnels that passes the streets, even in the fifties in some building.
For more education Do you know that Iraq has a Parliament in the fifties and forties. Yes we know that Sadam destroyed allot of ethics but that does not mean that we did not have.
Do you know that there are Modern areas in Baghdad never shown yet!? Yes the damage is allot in Iraq because Sadam, the Sanctions and the last compined events but for sure not every thing truth is shown.
A talk like that may reduce trusty in 大象传媒.
The reporting of this poll sheds a very negative light on the situation in Iraq. It is claimed that this was an extensive poll covering all 18 provinces and a sample of 2000 Iraqis. Yet the Sunday Times yesterday published a poll giving a very different spin on the response of Iraqis to their current situation, and that poll was supposed to have used a sample of 5000 Iraqis.
As we all know, the results of polls tend to reflect the way that questions are phrased. There seem to be several possible explanations for the discrepancy:
- you're looking for bad news
- the Sunday Times is looking for good news
- the sampling just happened to throw up very different parts of the population and different parts of the Iraqi population have different views.
The coverage you are giving this poll tends to imply that the results reflect the truth about the situation. However, the use of polls is really a way of an organisation (whether the 大象传媒 or the Sunday Times) manufacturing news, rather than reporting it (in the same way that you trail upcoming interviews with politicians as breaking news). It's not objective, and it's not balanced, and I frankly think the 大象传媒 should have higher standards than this. At least, if you're going to report the results of one opinion poll, have the decency to give us a fair and balanced view across the whole landscape of polls.
2000 people in a country of around 24 million is far too small a sample size. Please do better next time before trying to push your anti-Iraq war agenda on us.
Yet you fail to mention the other poll published yesterday in the Times which questioned more people than the 大象传媒 one.
"Iraqis: life is getting better"
MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.
Strange that the two polls seem to be exactly oposite. Still, we can't expect the 大象传媒 to mention any good news.
"The 大象传媒 has done better than most at chronicling events in the four years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."
What a lot of self serving rubbish. I remember quite distinctly that when the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down in Bhagdad, every major television news agency was there live chronicling the symbolic fall of the regime with one notable exception...you guessed it, 大象传媒. Why? Was it an editorial expression of the 大象传媒's position against the invasion right from the start? I though so then, I think so now.
大象传媒 certaily covered the study in the Lancet last summer. It concluded that as many as 600,000 Iraqis had died as the result of the occupation subsequent to the invasion. It never pointed out that this would have meant 600 a day every single day. Where were all those bodies piling up? Where was 大象传媒 questioning Lancet's methodology and conclusions? Where was it pointed out that the murder of 1 million people under Saddam Hussein's regime, about 150 a day had stopped cold ofsetting the supposed new deaths? And how many of those who were killed were insurgents themselves? How many were victims of the insurgents? Coverage? What coverage, just what you wanted to report? More like propaganda than news, it's what passes for news in 大象传媒's so called reporting of the news.
Coverage of events in the north, the Kurdish area has been sporadic at best. While the area is hardly ideal yet, things are much better and continuing to improve. This is an indication of what the rest of Iraq could have been like and where it could have been going had the insurgency not taken such a heavy toll. The story of Iraq since the invasion is the story of failed opportunity, failure of those who live there to take advantage of a golden opportunity given to them to create a peaceful prosperous democratic nation at peace with itself and at peace with the world. It is a story of failure of Iraqi leadership and the triumph of sectarian interests, not of failure of the occupiers. It is also the story of Iraq's barbaric neighbors for whom Iraq as a successful example is an anathema to be prevented at all costs. Patience with the Iraqi government is growing thin in the US, even among many who supported the invasion in the first place. The only real question is when will it run out, when will the time for the Iraqi government to fix its own problems, to put its own house in order expire. It's now a matter of months or a couple of years at most. The US will not stay indefinitely and when it leaves, if the Iraqis haven't got it straightened out by then, they will be left to kill each other and put the lie to the occupation as the cause of the violence once and for all. Who will 大象传媒 scapegoat then when the US is gone?
Pessisimism 鈥榞rowing amongst Iraqis鈥 crows the 大象传媒.
Then, looking at the details of the poll we find鈥
Do you think your children will have a better life than you, worse, or about the same?
Better 42%
Worse 37%
About the Same 21%
and
What is your expectation for how things will be for Iraq as a country overall a year from now? Will they be much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse?
Much Better 14%
Somewhat Better 26%
About the Same 26%
Somewhat Worse 21%
Much Worse 13%
Now I'm no psephologist, but don't these numbers indicate a somewhat more optimistic view about the future that a pessimistic one?
Well, I have not had a chance to examine both polls in depth, but it seems that the headlines are reporting different questions.
The Beeb's poll shows people are less optimistic than two years ago; the Times' that they still think they are better off than under Saddam. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Another own goal by the 大象传媒!, is the 大象传媒 really trying to prove how biased it really is?, come on 大象传媒 try harder and give us real impartial reporting.
Question 31 is particularly sneaky.
"How safe do you feel in your neighbourhood? Very safe, not very safe, or not safe at all?"
It's an 'over-centre' question - it doesn't allow a middle ground reply.
Consider a similar question: Is this bowl of water scalding hot, not scalding hot, or cold? If the water is hot, or warm, you will tick 'not scalding hot'.
NOw imagine you are a respondent feeling 'moderately safe' , or just 'safe'. Rather oddly, there's no answer to match these opinions; so you end up ticking 'not 'very safe' '.
This has the clever effect of skewing the replies towards a 'bad news' result.
Somewhat inevitably, it's the "76% don't feel safe' that makes it as lead headline on News24.
Whilst we may argue about poll percentages and why, there is a clear need for medical and basic sanitary work in the corners of IRAQ we now find ourselves. Could we not 'export' one of our better tried and tested ideas?. Everyone needs a hospital, so let us debate that; we as a nation (UK) should sponsor a local IRAQ hospital to replace or rebuild that which our 'ally' has accidentally bombed. This should give us positive feedback in any IRAQ Poll. It's probably more important than us sponsoring the Olympics in London. And a more usefull solution to the problem of 'feel good' whilst under occupation. At least it would give 'us' a feel good factor in this country. We have much to shame us. I vote.
Was the demographic split (60% Shia, 20% Kurd, 20% Sunni) accurately reflected in your survey, as the Shia/Kurd 80% of the population always seems to be more optimistic in its outlook than the 20% Sunni supporters of the ex-dictator Saddam?
Or did this not suit your own agenda??
Why use pejoritive terms like "the presence of coalition forces is DETESTED", rather than the terminology of the poll itself?
Impartial reporting by the 大象传媒????
NOT A CHANCE!!!!
Here in Amerika... the tell-lie-vision news (especiall-lie Fox Newes) says that the glorious invasion of Iraq-nam is going quite well! They claim that the recent "$urge" (sending additional U.$. troops to Baghdad) will surely win a victory for "the forces of freedom."
Isn't this just wonder-fool comrade?
Hello Jonathan,
I am sorry to say but western media has systematically played in the hands of their politicians. 大象传媒 is no different and objectively speaking, "... has done better..." is not true on the one hand and is not what justifies the sidelining of media responsibility on the other hand.
If western media would have played their true role for which news media is supposed to be there anyways then;
- The US and UK regimes would not have been able to brainwash the masses by their post war rhetoric of "freedom", "democracy" and "removal of Saddam" in a pursuit to hide the fact that they cheated the world and their own people.
- That their actions are not only against any international norms of 21st century but are inhumane, barbarous, criminal and dangerous for the whole world.
- That it is their mindless decision to attack Iraq on false pretext that has plunged Iraq into a situation where it is today. This has resulted into a modern time holocaust for Iraq for which both these regimes are directly and indirectly responsible. The daily lives and economic situation for those who are still alive in Iraq is in constant state of uncertainty, terror and dejection.
- That what they have done and are doing in Iraq has in fact, promoted so called 鈥淭errorism鈥 and has fed the cause of fanatics and have enabled them to justify their agenda and recruit more who have lost everything and see no future.
- That all the above constitutes international crimes of horrific nature comparable to most heinous war crimes of past century and that both the US and UK regimes should be answerable to International Criminal Courts and tried as International War Criminals
Instead of doing their job correctly and honestly, what western media does is to confuse the masses by constantly hammering propaganda and rhetoric from their politicians in an attempt to mislead the very people who trust them for giving them correct information.
To be honest, today the western media and most of the media in general are actually hijacking the truth and feeding the masses with some sort of tailor-made story as 鈥淭he Reality鈥.
Sometimes, its gives a creepy feeling as I got while reading 1984 by George Orwell.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - or "How do you tear up the UN Charter and make it look as though you've done it in the cause of democracy? Easy! - conduct a poll...statistics never lie!"
Does anyone happen to know, please, whether computer technology has come up with the equivalent of an online bucket, into which a retired teacher can be sick?
Reference 大象传媒 news 19/20 March-Why, when Teletext carried some 20 important news items, including grave danger of a repeat of the 1953 floods down the East Coast of England, do we have to watch Huw Edwards, looking faintly ridiculous in a flak jacket altho' in no apparant danger,dominating the programmes with the situation in Iraq. It seems Editors simply cannot distinguish between "Current Affairs" and proper news. What does it cost to fly Mr Edwards & his entourage to Iraq, and does it really matter when you already have reporters there in abundance?
There's a big problem with reading in English the results of a poll presumably carried out in Arabic. Translating from one language to another is an art rather than a science.
One of the headlines coming out of this poll is that 51% of people find attacks on coalition troops to be acceptable. But when you read the actual survey results, the question is phrased as follows: "Thinking about the political action of other people, do you find each of these items to be
acceptable or not acceptable? Attacks on coalition forces; Attacks on Iraqi government forces".
Now, there's two problems here. Firstly, including the word "political" in here makes an immediate assumption: that those attacking coalition and government forces are doing so for political reasons. That begs the question (in the strict, philosophical sense of that phrase).
Secondly, and more importantly, without knowing the nuances of the Arabic phrasing used, it's not immeditely clear that the respondees believed that they were replying to a question about physical, violent attacks. If someone says "David Cameron attacked the Prime Minister over his handling of the Iraq war", no-one would assume that it meant he punched him, because "attack" has multiple meanings in English. It may be completely unambiguous in Arabic - but as a journalist, I'd want to know that for certain before I reported things in the way that they have been reported.
"The 大象传媒 has done better than most at chronicling events in the four years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein"
Jonathan, whilst the 大象传媒 should be congratulated in not letting Iraq slide too far from the headlines, i've never been able to understand why a massively funded website like your own is out performed in reporting daily news events in Iraq by a small group of people running a website via user by donations.
www.icasualties.org carries far more linked news stories each day than the 大象传媒 website ever does.
Why?