Polls, Truth Sometimes At Odds
CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Political Views, Psychology Can Make People Believe In Falsehoods
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Podcast Poll Positions Listen to CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic dissect the data to see what's driving public opinion.
-
Section CBS News Polls Read the latest polls done by CBS News polling unit.
How can people believe something that isn’t true?
A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn’t true?
One reason might be related to the amount of time a person spends following news, something related to education and gender. Forty-four percent of those with a high school education or less say Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, while just 20 percent of college graduates say so. Thirty-eight percent of women think he was part of the attack, compared with 27 percent of men.
Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.
Bringing down Saddam remains the key accomplishment of the war, according to the public, and those who support the war are more likely to believe this and to credit Saddam with a role in 9/11. Doing so, after all, gives them another justification for the war they support. Opponents of the war don’t have the same reason to blame Saddam.
Making a link between terrorism in general and the war in Iraq also matters. Overall, Americans are more likely to say the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists who might attack the U.S. than to say it is eliminating terrorists. But among those who believe the U.S. is eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, just about half (49 percent) believe that one of those terrorists was Saddam himself!
Among Republicans, blaming Saddam is also related to the vote choice of those who say they plan to participate in a Republican primary or caucus next year. Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11.
But finally, the belief in what isn’t true brings us back to the quality of information - to where it comes from and how it is perceived. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, has conducted research (reported in this Washington Post article) that suggests that some people who are told something is false may actually remember it as being true. He measured the misperception within 30 minutes of the receipt of the information, and found that misperceptions may actually become stronger over time.
Apparently, linking one idea with another, even when it starts with a negative link, can reinforce the association between the two ideas. Howard Schuman, a University of Michigan professor emeritus and an expert in formulating polling questions, wrote in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s member listserve about a phenomenon he observed in a Detroit-area study some years back. The Metropolitan Detroit cross-section sample was asked to identify "Joe McCarthy," he wrote. Here were some of the verbatim answers:
"Yes, a Senator accused of being a communist."Senator Joe McCarthy, of course, made a name for himself accusing other people of being communists.
"Yes, Red communist Senator."
"Indicted for communism, a Senator?"
"Yes, communism, a Senator accused of communism."
"Yes, Joe McCarthy was a communist."
"They thought he was a communist but it was never proven."
"Communist leaning."
"Yes, Senator, communist."
Schuman called this inversion. “Inversions,” he wrote, “indicate that people (no doubt including ourselves) often remember or learn an association between two elements, but are at best vague as to its original nature.”
Inversion is not the same as getting something “wrong.” Years ago, in a CBS News/New York Times poll, one respondent said he know where El Salvador was - “in Louisiana, near Baton Rouge.” And Schuman reported one respondent’s characterization of the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, a response that he said was “altogether convincing.” It was: “The line in football where you have three backs and you split a wide receiver to the right. A handoff to the running back.”
Certainly, for many people, linking Saddam with 9/11 may be a case of inversion. For others, it may be wishful thinking to justify their current position on the Iraq war. Either way, it has been part of the belief system of about one-third of the country for many years, and that perception shows no sign of disappearing.
By Kathy Frankovic
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Saddam was a thorn in BIG OIL''s side flooding the market with cheap oil. Germany,France, Russia, China & Korea were his customers. BIG OIL was being subsidized by Congress. The lie of choice WMD. First official act of Iraq'' prime minister, negotiate oil leases with ROYAL DUTCH SHELL OIL..
- Reply to this comment
- The administration sent a strong message to NBC news anchor after the invasion with an envelope of US ARMY Military grade Anthrax.Bush, Cheney & the PNAC Project for a New American Century, a group formed in 1997 who''s agenda is to keep all governments say out of BIG CORPORATE GLOBAL BUSINESS dealings.
- Reply to this comment
- Mainstream media cannot tell the truth about Iraq and the reasons for going to war. A close friend of mine and multi-award winning journalist working for a Boston TV station told me that the corporations who own the networks will not allow any of their employees to discuss or promote BIG CORPORATIONS,BIG OIL, and Bush and Cheney''s real oil& gas profit motivated agendas for invading Afghanistan & Iraq.
- Reply to this comment
- It just makes me so sick that so many people listen to the mainstream propaganda. I guess people like me just know too much to fall for it.
For example 1/3 of Americans think Saddam had something to do with 911 (40% of Republicans. I think that says something about the Government of Pigs.
More people than not think we are winning in Iraq. What are we winning? The right to steal? If people knew the extent of war profiteering, they would be out in the streets protesting every week like I am. Well I am paying for it and I am sick of it. I will not let anyone get away with advocating the killing or spreading the propaganda. Heil!! - Reply to this comment
- "Remember that it was the mainstream media including Faux News, CNN, MSN and the New York Times who gave the clueless and ignorant chickenhawk bush the platform to spread his lies about Saddam, 911 and Al Quada."
I agree; the mainstream media betrayed the public trust as did the White House, Senate and House. Still the public is unabsolved of using critical thinking skills and seeking the truth. The Knight-Ridder media chain was not fooled on the runup to the war, during the war and now. They provided in depth coverage on the run up to the Iraq war and were right from the start. - Reply to this comment
- Remember that it was the mainstream media including Faux News, CNN, MSN and the New York Times who gave the clueless and ignorant chickenhawk bush the platform to spread his lies about Saddam, 911 and Al Quada.
Make no mistake, the same CEOs that are making huge profits by killing in Iraq, and by the way who are allowing the neo-cons to beat the drum for war in Iran, are still behind this administration.
This is so much like what happened in Nazi Germany - Reply to this comment
- Who knows what lurks in the minds of true believers. Delusional? Concrete? Frightened? All fo the above? Obviously the only remaining ones that support Bush; and even a lie is better than disbelief. I guess it hurts to think outside of the bunker.
- Reply to this comment
- "Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11."
Note that Rudy and Fred are the two with the ENTIRELY manufactured reputations. They pretend to be the "tough on crime", authoritarian type, but there is no substance to back it up.
Conclusion: repugs who stu-pidly persist in believing Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 are looking for a strong "daddy" to save them. When we inform them of their error (no connection between Iraq and Saddam, no WMD, no "greeting us with flowers", the surge isn''t working, etc.) they revert to childhood and call us names.
2nd conclusion: 30% of this country is totally insane. - Reply to this comment
- It''s amazing, the power of willfull ignorance in this country.
The facts are that this war was all about oil, and about the dollar as international currency. From the beginning, I said that we were going over there to stay, and that we would reduce Iraq to a 3rd world country unable to pump any of it''s own oil, thereby insuring high oil prices (traded on the dollar, not the euro).
ANYBODY who believes otherwise is either a fool, or a deliberately blinded GOP supporter. - Reply to this comment
- Where''s lars008 when you need him.
- Reply to this comment
- William Dawes and Paul Revere were dispatched to rouse the country. Samuel Prescott joined them enroute. They ran into a British patrol and Revere was captured. Dawes and Prescott got away.
Longfellow''s "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."
Should have been "The Midnight Ride of William Dawes"
Revere only rode like 3 miles were Dawes rode much further.
But did not rhyme in the song.
See history can be changed if you repeate a lie enough times. - Reply to this comment
- If you repeat a lie often enough it will become history.
Just like the midnight ride of ---------?
If you say Paul Revere you are wrong.
But it has been repeated in the song of the 1800''s that it has become truth.
That''s the idea. Repeat it often enough and people will believe it.
Watch the movie.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
People are idiots. - Reply to this comment
- It also has not escaped notice that the journalism industry has done little or nothing to dispel the false assumptions they themselves helped spread, in fact, they continue to bias their reporting toward the Bush administrations original lies, sort of like positing that water is dry, then basing all subsequent reports and opinions on the original false assumption.
The "war" is illegal, based on the fact that the original reasons for it are lies, but the press is amazingly, even obscenely silent on this point. - Reply to this comment
- "How can people believe something that isn%u2019t true?
A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
This is because Bush, in his desperation to start an illegal war, allowed and encouraged his agitprop crew to use a gullible and sycophantic mass media to stir up religious intolerance and fear among his supporters, playing on the racism and xenophobia that is ingrained into too many Americans. Saddam was linked by association, as the leader of an Islamic nation.
Don''t forget, we had to ask Muhammad Ali to call for calm in the wake of anti Islam violence that saw even non Muslim Sikhs beaten by "white" racists, because of their tradition of wearing a turban, when the vast majority of Muslims don''t even wear one.
The 9/11 BS is still trumpeted by pro war supporters, who run out of logic when confronted with the incontrovertible fact that Bush lied, and the reasons for this "war" are all false. - Reply to this comment
- Amen cofmanaaron!!!
P.S. libsluvsuvs, you''re a moron! - Reply to this comment
- No matter how much people don''t like President Bush, or the Americans because of him. People tend to Judge without knowing how their life would be in "his " shoes. Who all remembers the power of the United Nations when they''re not happy with the war in in Irqa. If Bush is such a bad president like some people make him look....remember the next cpresident may not have done half as good as Bush. I don''t like the munipulation in the goverment and seeems finally see that. by the way how can Bush be blamed for all the murdering, killins, rape, robbery......listen i think we need to start right within us...we need to change our familys and our communities will get better and the joy and happiness will spread and change this world.
- Reply to this comment
- Finally, statistical proof that more republicans than democrats are complete idiots. Remembering something that you are told isn''t true as true? I''m sorry, but you have to be pretty stupid to think in that manner. For their justification though, Bush and his administration have lied to the American people repeatedly about the non-connection between Saddam and Osama, saying there was a link when there was not one at all. It''s just that most republicans have to little brain power to form an independant thought besides ''Git R Done''.
- Reply to this comment
- libsluvsuvs said: "you will find out soon enough when you run out of gas.." We have too many options to run out of gas. We protect Canada, why? We get most of our foreign oil from Alberta. We have plenty of oil of our own. Modern processes can turn coal into oil, corn into oil. So Mideast oil doesn''t need to be monopolized, except that its the easiest option for the current power structure, which may explain our presence in Iraq. I agree its probably a reason. I''d prefer that the govt level with us if thats the case. Tell us that''s why we''re sacrificing soldiers and treasury: and tell us who benefits the most from that kind of protection.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by MoonBeam461 at 11:51 PM : Sep 12, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******
yes you are crazy..and I think you should just sit down and light up a joint becuase I DONT EVEN KNOW WHY YOU ARE SO CONCERNED becuse I KNOW YOU REALLY DONT GIVE DIDDLY ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS AT ALL. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by ubrew12 at 11:48 PM : Sep 12, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
In all honesty, i have not choice but to trust our federal govt. to do what they need to do to STOP TERRORISM..I agreed with bush when he decided to PROACTIVELY fight terrorism instead of REACTING to terrorism. MY IRRITATION IN IRAQ..is that we are bogged down in iraq when we should be moving on..I am looking at Syria or Iran.
Stop fooling yourself in thinking that bush is a master conquisadores ready to make iraq another state because we were never in ''invading'' business. we are in the middle east to protect our interest and what is that interest..well you will find out soon enough when you run out of gas.. - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.



