US Media Misquote Honduran Poll

Does anyone care? Isn't this just a continuation of the US historic role of supporting brutal military dictators over democratically elected leaders we happen to disagree with?

Excuse me while I conflate US Media with the US power elite.

Truthout.org:

US Press Falsely Claims Honduran Plurality for Coup

Tuesday 14 July 2009

by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

A supporter of Honduras's ousted president Manuel Zelaya

walks past a line of police officers at a road blockade.

(Photo: Edgard Garrido / Reuters)

Did a CID-Gallup poll last week indicate that a plurality of Hondurans support the military coup against democratically elected President Zelaya? Yes, according to The Washington Post [July 9], The Wall Street Journal [July 10], The Christian Science Monitor [July 11], and Reuters [July 9], which all reported that the poll showed 41 percent in favor of the coup, with only 28 percent opposed.

But in fact the poll showed that 46 percent - a plurality - were opposed to the coup, according to The New York Times [July 10], The Associated Press [July 11] - and the president of CID-Gallup, in an interview with Voice of America on July 9.

As of this writing - Sunday evening, 5:30 pm Eastern time - none of the outlets which reported the poll incorrectly had corrected their earlier, inaccurate, reports.

Here's a comment to a previous Truthout article that sums it up pretty well:

Not only were these polls

Tue, 07/14/2009 - 10:35 — Anonymous (not verified)

Not only were these polls done by the current Honduran press (did we quote Pravda as gospel a few decades ago?), but methodology of any such poll is PRETTY QUESTIONABLE. How many people were asked, from which regions of the country? Were the elites who staged the coup disproportionately represented? This leaves us only one thing left to trust: DEMOCRACY. Polls are usually done with manipulative purposes in our own country as well. How many Americans define themselves as Republicans? Now, ask how many think they're conservative (we still have more "conservatives" than "liberals" - in fact that happened even while McCain was trounced in the polls and election by President Obama). Now ask people’s opinions of individual issues. Surprise! Most people are liberals and don't know it because they've been so manipulated by the conservatively corporate owned press. If you’re liberal on 95% of all issues you're not a moderate, and you're definitely NOT conservative. However, in a climate that defines conservative as "loving your family" and "loving your country" and liberal as the opposite, how can people not be conservative, unless they actually pay attention to American politics, which most Americans can't be bothered to do. In Honduras, who says actual polls were even done? What proof is there? Would our press have asked the opinions of anyone but the elites? In fact, were the polls pretty much conducted by and for the elites? If so, we’re left with one conclusion: that even the elites are divided about the coup. If polling numbers are against Zalaya why wasn’t democracy allowed to take it's course. Obviously, they’d have had nothing to worry about. No, democracy is exactly what the coup regime is trying to prevent, along with "whoever" is pulling their strings (C.I.A. maybe?)

Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar

Lobbyists, administration officials, media owners—sounds normal. Only this time it went public by mistake.

Politico.com:

By MIKE ALLEN & MICHAEL CALDERONE | 7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli both said today that they were not aware of the flier or the specifics of what it offered.

“This should never have happened,” Weymouth told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. “The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

“You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."

Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business

side of the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said he had not seen the material promoting it until today. “The flier, and the description of these things, was not at all consistent with the preliminary conversations the newsroom had,” Brauchli said, adding that it was “absolutely impossible” the newsroom would participate in the kind of event described in the solicitation for the event.

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

Brauchli emphasized that the newsroom had given specific parameters to the paper’s business staff that he said were apparently not followed. He said that for newsroom staffers to participate, they would have to be able to ask questions and that he would “reserve the right to allow any information or ideas that emerge from an event to shape or inform our coverage.” That directly contradicts the solicitation to potential sponsors, which billed the dinner as “off-the-record.”

“Our mission in the news department is to serve an audience,” Brauchli said, “not serve our sponsors.”

“We do not use the Post’s name or our journalists to gain access to officials or sources for the benefit of non-news purposes,” he continued.

Brauchli said that Post employees on the business side — not the newsroom — would have been responsible for seeking participants for this event. Reporters, he said, would not solicit sources or administration officials. Brauchli said that he did not know who was invited or who accepted.

Ceci Connolly, a Post reporter who covers health care, told POLITICO that she had been told there would be a dinner and that she would be invited. However, Connolly said, she “knew nothing about sponsorships and had not seen any flier or invitation.”

Brauchli declined to comment on whether anyone on the business side would be held responsible for the abortive plan. He said that would be a decision for either Weymouth or Stephen Hills, The Post’s president and general manager.

But regarding future events, Brauchli said: “I would hope that everybody in the Washington Post Company is always sensitive to the importance of the newsroom’s integrity and independence.”

Charles Pelton, The Post business-side employee listed as the event contact, seemed to dispute Brauchli’s version of events.

Pelton was quoted by Post ombudsman Andy Alexander in an online commentary as saying that newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events.“This was well-developed with the newsroom,” Pelton told Alexander. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”

According to Alexander, who called the flier a “public relations disaster,” Pelton told him: “There’s no intention to influence or pedal.” “There’s no intention to have a Lincoln Bedroom situation,” referring to charges that President Bill Clinton used invitations to stay at the White House as a way of luring political backing.

Pelton did not return a phone call from POLITICO.