Editing Media coverage of the Iraq War (section)

===Criticisms of pro-invasion bias===
{{See also|Media bias}}
[[Image:Iraq War Media Sources Opinion Percentage.svg|300px|thumb|A study found that in the lead up to the Iraq War, most sources were overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.]]

A [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] study on American public opinion found that:
*Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, or was directly involved in the [[September 11 attacks]] (48% after invasion).
*Sixty-nine percent believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the [[September 11 attacks]].
*Twenty-two percent believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against US soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
*In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these perceptions, in contrast to 71% for [[CBS]] and 27% who tuned to [[NPR]]/[[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |title=Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War |access-date=April 11, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070403153921/http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |archive-date=April 3, 2007 |date=October 3, 2003 |last1=Kull |first1=Steven |author-link1=Steven Kull |last2=Ramsay |first2=Clay |last3=Subias |first3=Stefan |last4=Lewis |first4=Evan |last5=Warf |first5=Philip |publisher=The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll}} See also: {{cite web |url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc |title=Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War |access-date=October 2, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061008020042/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc |archive-date=October 8, 2006 |date=October 2, 2003 |website=www.worldpublicopinion.org}}</ref>

In an investigation of the news coverage of Colin Powell's 2003 UN address, rhetorical scholar John Oddo found that mainstream journalists "strengthened Powell's credibility, predisposed audiences to respond favorably to his discourse, and subtly altered his claims to make them seem more certain and warranted."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Oddo |first=John |title=Intertextuality and the 24-Hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's U.N. Address |location=[[East Lansing, Michigan]] |publisher=[[Michigan State University Press]] |year=2014 |page=44}}</ref> In 2003, a study of the mainstream media released by [[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] stated the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources and left out many [[anti-war]] sources. According to the study, 64% of guests on the studied networks were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the guests (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with US guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Steve |last1=Rendall |first2=Tara |last2=Broughel|date=May 1, 2003 |title=Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent |journal=[[Extra!]]|publisher=[[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] |url=https://fair.org/extra/amplifying-officials-squelching-dissent/}}</ref>

FAIR also conducted a similar study in February 2004. According to the study, which took place during October 2003, current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq which aired on network news channels.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fair.org/extra/if-news-from-iraq-is-bad-its-coming-from-u-s-officials/ |title=If News From Iraq Is Bad, It's Coming From U.S. Officials |publisher=[[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] |first=Jon |last=Whiten |date=February 1, 2004 |access-date=March 28, 2007}}</ref>

After the invasion, the editors of the ''New York Times'' apologized for its coverage of Hussein's alleged weapons programs, acknowledging that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims (related to Iraqi weapons programs) as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html |title=The Times and Iraq |website=The New York Times |date=May 26, 2004 |access-date=April 11, 2007}} See also {{Cite journal |first=Michael |last=Massing |website=[[The New York Review of Books]] |volume=51 |issue=3 |date=February 26, 2004 |title=Now They Tell Us |author-link=Michael Massing |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/02/26/now-they-tell-us/}}</ref>

During the invasion, critics argued that the mainstream media unduly focused on optimistic events, such as the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in [[Firdos Square]], which was staged with the help of the US military forces, thus downplaying more negative news developments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641|title=Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling |website=The NewStandard |date=July 3, 2004 |last=Elmer |first=Jon}}</ref> In particular, the mainstream media has been criticized for underreporting news about Iraqi civilian casualties, which are estimated to be anywhere between 100,000 and 650,000.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Burnham|first1=Gilbert|last2=Lafta|first2=Riyadh|last3=Doocy|first3=Shannon|last4=Roberts|first4=Les|date=October 2006|title=Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey|url=https://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/MortalityCrossSectional.pdf|journal=The Lancet|volume=368|issue=9545|pages=1421–1428|doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69491-9|pmid=17055943|s2cid=23673934}}</ref>

As the security situation in Iraq has worsened since the invasion, many journalists have found it increasingly difficult to report from Iraq without jeopardizing their lives. Some media outlets, unable to afford the cost of additional security, have even abandoned their bureaus in Baghdad. This trend has forced journalists to depend even more heavily on US military sources, which has led some critics to call into question the impartiality of their reports on events such as the [[Iraqi elections]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schell |first=Orville |title=Baghdad: The Besieged Press |date=April 6, 2006 |url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2006/0406besieged.htm |agency=[[The New York Review of Books]] |website=[[Global Policy Forum]] |access-date=April 11, 2007}}</ref>

A post-2008 election poll by [[FactCheck.org]] found that 48% of Americans believe Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks; the group concluded that "voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.html |title=Our Disinformed Electorate |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090208021648/http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.html |archive-date=February 8, 2009 |first1=Kathleen Hall |last1=Jamieson |author-link1=Kathleen Hall Jamieson |first2=Brooks |last2=Jackson |website=[[FactCheck.org]] |date=December 12, 2008}}</ref>