To the Editor:
Reporters have an obligation to check factual statements before publication, especially when their stories may prompt strong reactions among readers. Jessica Spaulding's front-page story in yesterday's issue entitled "Academics oppose Iraq war," was just such a story. Unfortunately, it contained a very big factual error that shaped both the content and tone of its message.
The story begins with this apparently factual statement: "National polls show the American public strongly supports military action against Iraq, but many in academia remain opposed." The reporter then goes on to develop the implications of this gulf between the public and academia as it appears across the nation and at Dartmouth. Set up in this way, the story then develops a predictable picture in which "the people" are opposed by "liberals" whose last bastion is the university campus. Unfortunately this picture is not news; it's ideology.
Here are some facts that the reporter should have considered before writing her story. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken Oct. 3-6, and published on Oct. 8 found the following opinions among the American people. A small majority, 53 percent of the public, favor "U.S. Ground Troops Invading Iraq to Remove Saddam Hussein from Power," while 40 percent are opposed to any invasion and 7 percent are undecided. Moreover, when the question asked is about a "U.S. invasion of Iraq if 5,000 casualties" (not an improbable figure), only 33 percent favor the Bush policy and 60 percent oppose it. Is this "strong support?"
Clearly facts like these indicate that public support for the administration is actually quite weak. This generalization is supported by more information in the same poll. A 49 percent to 46 percent plurality does not believe the "U.S. has done all it can to solve the Iraq situation diplomatically." And a clear majority, 54 percent, thinks Congress, not the President, has the "final authority for deciding whether U.S. should Invade Iraq."
Other less reliable data, like the numerous reports of constituent messages to Congressional and Senate offices running 50 to more than 100 to one against an American invasion of Iraq, should also have been considered by the reporter. They raise doubts about the correctness of the "strong support" generalization she used to frame her own story.
So where do the facts lead in this case? Certainly not to the knee-jerk conclusion that academics are once again out of touch with the people. Instead, if read fairly, the facts revealed in recently-gathered public opinion data tell us something quite different, and more limited. This week it appears that lots of the people and lots of academics harbor grave doubts about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. It just might be that on this issue the public and university professors are of one mind, not two. At the very least, it seems most of us have read the same Constitution.
