orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/24/86)
Ronald Reagan, as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon did with Vietnam, will stoop
to any degree of outrageous lie to justify his War in Central America.
The latest absurdity was his citation of a poll which he claimed showed
the Central American people support military aid to the Contras.
This was reported on the front page of the Newark Star-Ledger.
It is an apt illustration of media bias as a government parrot.
Nowhere in the article did the reporter even consider asking the
questions which immediately jump to anyone's mind about any poll:
1)what were the *specific* questions asked?
It is well-known in social science that specific wording can totally
reverse the results of answers to a poll question. The report
in the Star-Ledger (as is typical of most American journalism)
simply repeated Reagan's statement that the poll showed Central
Americans supported American policy of aid to the Contras.
Nowhere did the reporter even question what the specific questions
which supposedly demonstrated this conclusion were.
2)what was the sample?
If I ask all Republicans about any policy I am apt to get biased
results. Particularly if one does a telephone poll in a Third
World country like those in Central America one will vastly
overrepresent the affluent who can afford phones in the first place.
Nowhere did the reporter question the sampling method.
3)Oscar Arias Sanchez was just elected president of Costa Rica by
a fair margin. A major part of his platform was opposing military
aid to the Contras and promoting a negotiated settlement. For
this reason he invited President Ortega of Nicaragua to his
inauguration in a clear snub to Reagan's policy and a concomitant
attempt to better relations bw Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Besides this, the Honduran and Guatemalan govt's have all announced
their opposition to military aid to the Contra terrorists.
Given these facts, one would expect an objective reporter to
question such poll results in clear contradiction to their own
government's policy. Most especially in the case of Costa Rica
which just had an election in which the issue of military aid
to the Contras was a major issue *opposed* by the winning candidate.
To me, this represents a clear example of the kind of uncritical
parroting which the media often does. To me this is shoddy and
irresponsible journalism. It presents Reagan's story as "fact"
on the front page with absolutely no confirmation or consideration
given to quite plausible alternatives.
Fortunately National Public Radio is *not* so shoddy.
Rather than simply accepting such a claim which flies in the face
of reason, they investigated *which* polls demonstrated support
for the Contra terrorists. There were no such polls. There
were polls which showed generalized support for the US, and
polls which showed that Central Americans were worried about
the Sandinistas and most particularly the threat of regional war.
However Oscar Arias Sanchez' pollster specifically asked all
Costa Ricans whether they supported *military* aid to the Contras -
only 10% agreed, most disagreed. (I forget the exact figure)
Given that Oscar Arias Sanchez just won election I give his pollster
far more credibility than Reagan.
Of course this story is nowhere to be found in the Star-Ledger.
tim sevener whuxn!orb