That study says only 3% of individuals who were interviewed on the 6 studied channels were opposed to the war. They only studied coverage across 6 mainstream media outlets:
> The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.
This doesn't tell me anything about the state of independent news outlets at the time.
Do independent news outlets really matter if the vast majority of people get their news for ABC / CBS / NBC / CCN / Fox /PBS?
Again, I agree that the US acted in a different way than Russia does right now, but the situation itself is also different. The US did not need to take the actions Russia has to take, because the majority of people in the US where pro-war during the invasion, with only 17% strongly opposing the illegal war [1].
Your "only 3%" comment was replying to my argument that to compare Russia's suppression of all opposing speech to the US's voluntary support from the mainstream media is patently absurd. That the US had overwhelming voluntary support from its people isn't proof that I'm wrong, it's exactly my point.
Public opposition grew despite media narratives and there were ways to clamp down on domestic opposition that U.S. wouldn't entertain that Russia would. So these comparisons miss the forest for the trees.
That study says only 3% of individuals who were interviewed on the 6 studied channels were opposed to the war. They only studied coverage across 6 mainstream media outlets:
> The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.
This doesn't tell me anything about the state of independent news outlets at the time.