Iraq Perceptions and Research

The issue of how to deal with terrorism and evil regimes in the world seems to provoke strong polarized opinions. With these often come misperceptions of the actual state of affairs. People seem to selectively use and distort information to support their position. We see this when we ask people whether Iraqi citizens are better or worse off than they were before the iraqi war; the split in opinion seems clearly along ideological lines. Some perceive, often strongly believe, the Iraqi’s are worse off. Their living conditions are worse, they have poorer life because of the destruction of their infrastructure, they have no economy or income, and the war against the terrorism is going badly. Of course on the other side, people paint a picture of improving living conditions. Their perceptions of conditions in Iraq are exactly the opposite. With this difference of opinion about conditions, what seems interesting and important might be the source of people’s information, whether they seem to have actual facts that support their judgments. Sorting this all out is of course a highly charged task, so not only do we have the challenge of locating the facts of the situation but then finding facts and explanations for why such large difference of opinion might exist, some in spite of the actual facts and other because of them.

Now we don’t make progress in reaching agreement by throwing assertions at each other but research using objective methods provides real progress. We should be able to conduct research and find facts that we can all agree upon and then do the same into the secondary problem of why those how misperceive the facts hold those views. For example to establish the facts of the condition of Iraq, IBD reports that before 2003 there were no independent media outlets in Iraq. Today there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations, and over 100 newspapers. Are these objective facts reflecting the Iraqi condition? What kinds of indicators should we choose to investigate? Max Boot reports per capita income has doubled since 2003 and the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at 16.8% next year. There are 5 times more cars than under Saddam, 5 times more telephone subscribers, 32 times more internet users, and 14 of the 18 provinces are violence free. And of course we probably can agree that the genocide, the rape rooms, the torture and killing that occurred under Saddam has stopped.

These facts, if they are facts, don’t seem to be determined by one’s ideological predisposition. We could also count terrorist attacks. I don’t have good data here but the facts I have seen report there were 347 attacks on Americans and Iraqis before the January elections and 13 attacks before the later October elections. If we have objective methods for investigating Iraq’s conditions, these should be reasonably objective facts that we can easily agree on but they do seem in scarce supply in the rather opinionated columns and news stories. Typically columnist throw out generalities without substantiating them with citations of research and specific findings.

But regardless of these difficulties in finding objective facts reflecting the truth of the matter, since the average citizen doesn’t have the time or need to conduct a personal investigation into the facts, many may adopt second hand opinions such as those they perceive from the mainstream media. So it is also important to have some sense of the public’s sources for their opinions particularly the rather notorious reputation polling shows the public sometimes has for stupid ideas and misperceptions. This ignorance should not be considered unusual since it is rational on the part of the citizens not to waste their time conducting factual research into things such as foreign policy that are not an important part of their daily lives. People do seem to usually have a rather surprisingly profound and comprehensive knowledge surrounding their jobs but on topics tangential to their daily concerns they often express a degree of ignorance that we should expect. So we might expect citizens to generally adopt views and perceptions regarding foreign policy from easily and widely available media sources. So a search for the source of public misperceptions (if they are misperceptions) could focus on the media and their possible biases.

But again this secondary matter of whether there is media bias seems itself to be in dispute. To assert that public opinion and perceptions of American foreign policy in Iraq are shaped by the media itself depends on an ideologically loaded perception. How would one transcend ideology to factually examine the issue of media bias? Does it exist or is this another case of a fact that depends on one’s point of view?

Again, research based on objective methods should lead the way. One way would be to conduct research that attempts to actually measure bias. For example, the Media Research Center reviewed every Iraq story on the evening news programs of ABC, CBS, and NBC from January through September and found 61% of the stories were negative or pessimistic while only 15% were positive or optimistic, a 4 to 1 ratio of negative to positive. It found 79 of the stories focused primarily on allegations of wrongdoing by American forces in Iraq including Abu Ghraib rehashes while 8 focused on heroism or good works.

Now if we had good research into these questions, the problem then becomes determining whether citizens’ ideological predispositions lead them to read and adopt views consonant with their points of view or whether they are rather passive consumers and adopters of what is presented to them. Can biased media significantly alter public opinion or is opinion rather stable and tied to ideological position?

So it seems there are interesting research questions here made important by the great credence given in our Democratic society to public opinion. Who would do this? I'm not sure. It seems our research function is largely filled by the universities but I wonder whether they could or would do it. Think tanks might be another possibility. Certain non-profits have established reputations for objective research and often draw in researchers from across the ideologic spectrum. But research into the source and origins of perceptions and conceptions that form the basis for public policy seems almost essential if we are to make progress in overcoming fundamental differences of opinion.