… according to a poll I just heard on CNN

The following people can kiss my ass!

Ummm…no it doesn’t. The charts don’t say anything about whose supporters are more likely to watch the news or which news sources are more popular. This study just shows the number of misrepresentations believed among those who watch different news sources and/or support different presidential candidates.

For instance, most layman Democrats did not believe in al-Quaida links to Sadddam, so the news has had little effect on their opinions.

Well, that’s only true because there are no links between al Qaeda and Saddam.

A Bush supporter who follows the news closely might have seen that article and concluded that we’d found WMDs. A Democratic supporter who was ignorant of the news would not have come to that conclusion.

But that’s an unfair comparison. That’s like me saying, “Democratic supporters who heard about the David Kay report concluded that we’ve found no WMD’s, but Bush supporters who don’t pay attention to the news still think we have found WMD’s.”

For it to be a fair comparison, there should at least be a “control” variable. For example, comparing Bush supporters and Dem supporters who both follow the news closely, Bush supporters are more likely to believe that we’ve found WMD’s. Of all people surveyed, those who watch Fox news are more likely to believe we’ve found WMD’s than those who listen to NPR.

it shows that the people who were likely to have believed something one way or the other are not swayed by what they see on the news.

That may be true, but unfortunately the survey doesn’t get into any other issues than the war. Maybe of Bush hadn’t lied so much, this survey would be more revealing. For example, if they had found WMD’s, but still no links to al Qaeda, we could have a better view of how the news affects predetermined opinions on both sides of the aisle. Kevin Drum put it best in the conclusion to his post :

And what would be even more interesting would be for PIPA to do similar reports on other issues. For example, are NPR listeners similarly well informed about, say, abortion issues or gun laws, or does Fox do a better job of bursting liberal misconceptions on those issues? If PIPA did a survey testing misperceptions in a wide variety of policy areas, would any news source come out consistently on top, thus showing genuine objectivity in reporting on controversial subjects? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Edit : I fixed your spelling. By the way, there's a great browser add-on called IESpell that will allow you to spell-check any text box by just right-clicking.]

It is a fact, an indisputable fact, a fact that should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news and is intelligent, as I know you are, that the Bushies have frequently implied a connection between Hussein and Al Queda, a connection that frankly didn’t exists, and that they have repeatedly instead, in spite of all evidence to the contrary that Iraq was an immediate, imminent threat that must be stopped with preemptive military force. It is also a fact that a large number of Americans subsequently believed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that Hussein was in league with Al Queda, AND that WMDs have been found, tow things which are absolutely bullshit.

I appreciate your devil’s advocacy, but this is beyond the pale. I reject your assertion that these polls indicate anything even remotely close to the notion that Liberals are less likely to pay attention to the news than Conservatives. If anything, I could put forth the more likely scenario that Liberals are more likely to get their news from a variety of sources (Hence the fact that the various polls cite multiple sources), hence the greater frequency of liberals not buying this Iraqi war bullshit, while conservative are likely to get their news from one or two sources at the most, hence the greater likelihood that they believe it.

Don’t waste your insight and intellect defending the indefensible. This isn’t about liberals vs. conservatives – it’s about the way this country ought to be run, and the fact that lies, having been told, also have been believed. You’re right to point to the hypocrisy of many on the left during the Clinton years. That hypocrisy, however, and Clinton’s lies, didn’t result in the death of thousands and the near end of our credibility around the world, and the straining of relations with out traditional allies.

Furthermore, absolutely no allegations of sexual assault were ever proven against Clinton. The only thing they proved was that he accepted a blow job from an intern, something which I found disgusting, but not impeachment disgusting.