Is BBC anti-war spin causing more casualties than necessary?

Great Debates
121

Hey, too each their own. My point was that, at least with Landsberg, I get some variation in subject manner. I still like Krugman: I just think his current partisan obsession has really sucked the life out of him.

—admittedly said a bit lightheartedly but with enough of an underlying bite to raise the cackles of this physicist who doesn’t like to see hard science abused to argue social science points—

To what exactly do you object? It sounds like a biting metaphor, sure, but eh?

—He’s definitely a better read on such topics although I couldn’t help but conclude from his column that “Boy, these economists are stupider than I thought. It took them that long to figure this out!?!”—

He was both poking fun at, and praising, the way in which his profession approaches problems. The point was not that anyone will think of the obvious answer: the point is that only people that think carefully will actually put effort into figuring out what seem to be exceptions from established theory, instead of just saying “well, the theory doesn’t always apply” and walking away, learning nothing.

Personally, I think his banana article, which was basically the same thing, was much funnier.

122

What I am objecting to is the fact that this metaphor was used only partly in jest…that it actually seemed that it was one of the two most substantive points of the article. So, one of the points was factually incorrect while the other was based on a flawed physical analogy.

Well, like I said, it is not that I didn’t enjoy this article; I did. He writes well and tells a good story. It was just that I was surprised (and perhaps skeptical) that so many economists could be confused for so long. To let others in on it, here. What sort of shocks me is his claim that they were really that befuddled by this problem and that they really found the “one step always costs the same” argument so compelling! For heaven’s sake, I took only 2 one-semester economics courses in my life and I can still remember my economics professor stating that, as a general rule, the “marginal utility” that one gains by “stuffing rudabagas down your esophagus” (his amusing canonical example that I still remember 20 years later!) is a decreasing function of the number of rudabagas you eat. It seemed kind of obvious to me from the get-go that this sort of reasoning is what applied to the escalator issue: Sure, people will walk if it will save them the difference between it taking an infinite amount of time and 1 minute to get to the top but will they really do it just to save the time going from 1 minute to 30 seconds? [To be honest, when I saw the introductory sentence of the article, and having recently read his more polemical piece in WSJ, I thought he would go on from this story to make an analogy to welfare and explain why welfare is destructive because it provides people with an escalator so they won’t walk. On the one hand, I was sort of glad to see he didn’t go there…On the other hand, I thought it would have made the article at least somewhat more provocative and profound.]

123

Greetings jshore. It was most amusing by the way to speculate that your reaction to the mention of Landsberg caused a kind of mechanical hissy fit on the SDMB software ;).

**december **: “Andrew Sullivan owns his own blog. The letter-writers in the Times were not owned by Murdoch; one of them had been a Labour Party minister. The BBC correspondant who complained isn’t financed by Murdoch. A separate question is why non-Murdoch media didn’t report on the position of the Labour minister or the BBC correspondant. Their POVs would seem to be newsworthy.”

  1. Sullivan’s income, which pays for his blog, is, apparently, at least partly derived from Murdoch.

  2. The letter-writers, as already discussed, had their own reasons for writing the letters; but Murdoch had his reasons for publishing them; and Sullivan for linking to them.

  3. The fact that no one has–to your knowledge–reprinted a Sun story is hardly surprising. As you have heard repeatedly, that publication is not known for its news.

Nor would it be at all common for journalists to report on letters to a newspaper as “news.” Indeed, it appears that only the concerted effort of two Murdoch-owned publications, and one blogger who works for Murdoch are there to suggest–and weakly at that–that there is anything to the allegations of anti-war bias at the BBC. Rather, as you have been told a dozen times, and as your own link to the Media Workers event illustrates, the BBC strives for balance and is accused of bias from both sides of the spectrum. Obviously for Britons that is not news.

In any case, do you think, for example, that Fox or CNN should run stories to report the “news” that New York Times columnist and famous economist Paul Krugman thinks the Bush administration is mismanaging the economy? Or should the New York Times run articles to report the “news” that neocon letter writers the Wall Street Journal feel that anti-war protests are prolonging the war? Once again, you seem unable to see the distinction between opinion and journalistic reportage of news.

"This non-Murdoch parody may be implying that the BBC is biased, but I’m not sure. Anyhow, it’s on point, and it’s funny. "

Your instinct to be uncertain is surely correct on this one. The parody seems to be satirizing exactly the kind of nonsense that Murdoch and co. are attempting to promulgate.

You missed a very interesting interview on the BBC World Service today with two Iraqi expats in Egypt.

124

—So, one of the points was factually incorrect while the other was based on a flawed physical analogy.—

Which was it really then: a jest, or a flawed physical analougy? How was it flawed in the limited sense he was using it?

I wish I could read what you’re talking about so I could give my own take, but alas, WSJ is a little stingy about letting cheapskates like me in for free.

—It was just that I was surprised (and perhaps skeptical) that so many economists could be confused for so long.—

Well, do you know how economists think? We’re kinda weird people. And I think that part of the reason people didn’t jump on the solution right away is, in part, because it’s A) we’re used to coming up with wacky and counter-intuitive solutions to riddles on their own term, before questioning the riddle (which is the next logical step, and the right step in this case) B) its incredibly amusing to think of a person just standing still on the stairs.

And you have to admit: the insights gained after mucking around in insane theories were better than we would have gotten if we hadn’t thought about the problem in the wrong way first.

—It seemed kind of obvious to me from the get-go that this sort of reasoning is what applied to the escalator issue—

Well… it’s not really. This isn’t about Diminishing Marginal Returns, but about the right way to measure returns.

125

Here’s a BBC article that takes a pessimistic tone on the war. Does anyone else find that headline a bit off? It seems to imply that failing to fully defeat the 5th largest army in the world in 12 days is a worrisome failure.

If the BBC’s pessimism is justified, then that’s simply good reporting. If it’s unjustified, then it may be bias. In any rate, the article supports the idea that the BBC generally is pessimistic about the success of the war.

126

This really is clutching at straws.

Did you have a listen to the World Service? I think it could be quite an education for you.

127

both headlines are simple staements of fact. No fallen cities, no revolts. what’s your point, what is it with you? Any time facts don’t fit your desires you throw around unsupported accusations of bias and fail to address any of the points made in refutation.

The war clearly is not going to plan, there have been no revolts and the Iraqi’s have not crumbled.

You wanted the damn war, now deal with the realities instead of erecting your paranoid stabbed in the back scenarios to shift the blame away from the arrogance of power that led the politicians to believe it would be easier.

128

Murdoch’s detests the BBC and likes it described as ‘subsidised media’, etc. whenever possible. Most of his problem is that the BBC – in his view – gets preferential treatment, which is quite possibly true; access to politicians, the awarding of frequencies and channels, non-capitalistic funding … he hates it all because he can’t compete with a foe that’s not even in the same (capitalist) game.

The BBC is now hugely interactive. Text messaging is new-ish (at least on the World Service, Radio Five Live programming - another BBC station you might want to seek out online - has had it for longer) but e-mails are read in relation to almost every leading news item (on radio, at least) and some e-mailers are phoned to elaborate on their opinions … I think we take all this for granted but, in actuality, it’s an incredibly dynamic and interactive news discourse. And of which, the presentation of news is a key component - thus what december seeks to do here, I hear every day. Issues of bias are thrown around by all sides all the time …

I can’t imagine it being possible, or even desirable, in anything other than well-funded public broadcasting. Superb example of public funded, public access broadcasting informing the national debate, IMHO. But then I’m biased …

129

From december’s article, which is a report from a correspondent:

"For the US and Britain, then, in this respect the war may not be going according to plan.

But that is not to underestimate the coalition’s successes so far.

The allies now control about half of the territory of Iraq, a country the size of France.

Casualties among coalition troops have been slight.

And what may be the decisive battle is about to be fought - against the Iraqi troops hiding in the fields and villages along the Euphrates river valley south of Baghdad."

Yeah, real hard bias there. You really caught them this time. :rolleyes:

130

To recap, your latest proof of casualty causing anti-war spin is that a correspondent in Baghdad said “Baghdad loyalty fails to waver” and "It is day 12 of the war and not a single major Iraqi city has fallen. "

I take it that this means that CNN, and worse Wall Street, are also biased?

131

True, but the spin is in which facts are chosen and how they are juxtiposed. Putting “12 days” together with a failure creates an impression that the war is going less well than it ought to. The headline could equally well have focused on various positive achievements to date. An equally true headline would be

After only a week and a half, the Coalition controls half of Iraq including the only deep-water port and has complete air supremacy, with slight casualties.

On preview, Mandelstam has noted this very point, but she is looking through the wrong end of the telescope IMHO. She points out that the article includes positive stuff. It had to. The positive results are facts. OTOH the article included negatives that were mere opinions or speculation. E.g.,

and

and

(BTW, see this article for a different POV on how Iraqis view the war.)

If the BBC article had stuck to facts, it would have inevitably been positive about the war results. However, it chose to include a substatial amount of speculative negative material, and the headline focused on the negative side.

132

“I seem to be in a hole, I’d better dig my way out.”

As I do not suffer from as advanced a case of paranoia as you we can’t debate. Honestly, do you not listen to yourself sometime?

133

You really believe what you write don’t you. I’m glad i do not have to live in the same cowering fear of the world that you apparently do. If I hadn’t been here awhile i’d assume you were a parody. If you think that is biased there is no hope for discussion.

Pathetic, simply pathetic.

134

Many conservatives have long thought “Clinton News Newwork” was biased. I think Wall Street is wrong about the war. I put my money where my mouth is by buying stocks last week (currently down 2% from the purchase price.) I am expecting (or hoping for) a sharp rise in the market, when the war reaches a tipping point and comes to a suprisingly rapid victory. We shall see.

135

[Jewish guilt]
Gavolt december, are there no limits to your willingness to wallow in nebbishhood just to keep this going?
[/Jewish guilt]

Since the whole point of having correspondent’s in the area is to have them offer us reasonably objectively analyses and interpretations of what we can’t judge for ourselves, the BBC’s article is well within the acceptable range. It is entirely true that “the war may not be going to plan.” Not only is the statement irrefutable it is, by now a commonplace.

Fom the Washington Post, a leading news analysis with this headline:

Advisers Split as War Unfolds
One Faction Hopes Bush Notes 'Bum Advice’

Here is another article with a downbeat title, "Stocks Sink on Fears of Protracted War."

On preview I see that december has already been informed that Wall Street is biased against the war.

The same article reports that:

“Stocks notched steep declines early Monday amid growing concerns that the U.S.-led war with Iraq could drag on longer than expected and jeopardize the long-awaited U.S. economic recovery.”

and it quotes this pessimistic business analyst:

"“With no sign of any kind of breakthrough, it looks like a long, slogging war," said Larry Wachtel, market analyst at Prudential Securities.”

Another BBC article?

No this one was from Fox News :smiley:

It’s nice to know that when it comes to their wallets, Murdoch’s audience can trust him to toss the “patriotic” propaganda ;).

Yesterday’s news, on and off the BBC, was dominated by Rumsfeld’s denial that the war plan wasn’t good: the BBC article in question, which doesn’t directly focus on the matter, is an extremely fair treatment of the situation. On the matter of Iraqi public opinion, it goes out if it’s way to explain that Iraqi perceptions are shaped by the media they see: and that what they see is the harshest impact on civilians.

Of course, anyone can find Iraqis somewhere who’ll speak for their enthusiasm about the war–you don’t need to link us to the Jerusalem Post, the newspaper that rushed to print the false news that chemical weapons had been found by US soldiers.

What we want to a get a sense of is what typical Iraqis are seeing, and what they’re feeling. And as the BBC article indicates, it’s a very complex picture. Wouldn’t you rather be clued in than live in a propaganda-generated la la land?

tagos: december, IMO, is neither afraid nor paranoid. He just likes to yank chain. I suspect when he was a little december he found that negative attention was better than no attention at all. :wink:

136

Wouldn’t that make him a may? :smiley:

137

December, maybe next time you should make sure that your evidence of “bias” doesn’t echo comments and stories appearing in the unapologeticaly pro-war FoxNews. The claims you are making really demand a broad analysis of war coverage as a whole in comparison to the BBC’s coverage as a whole: no single example can possibly support the grand claims of your (and Sullivan’s) case. That you can’t even find a single non-clutching at straws example is a problem enough: but even if you did, that still wouldn’t be good enough to demonstrate that the coverage was systematically biased in the manner that you and Sullivan assert.

138

This is certainly true. It’s true of bias accusations in general. Maybe that makes it a good debate topic. I can point out instances of BBC bias in one direction and adversaries can point out instances in the other direction. That’s why it’s a GD, not a GQ.

BTW Reuters has a positive article:

Lycos reported this story as of 11:52 Eastern Time. As far as I can see, BBC does not have this story. It would be a good rejoinder to the article I cited earlier, Baghdad loyalty fails to waver. It will be interesting to see whether BBC reports the happy welcome received by marines in Shatra, how long it will take them, and how the Beeb will presents the story, if they do pick it up.

.

139

The point of objective journalism is not to provide “rejoinders” to the spin of whatever stories you happen to arbitrarily find somewhere that you think contradicts a spin you imagine them to have. The article you link to is about the way Saddam has manipulated people against the U.S. in Baghdad, not in Shatra. That YOU happen to view the Reuter’s story as “THIS GOOD! MEAN ALL IRAQI LOVE U.S. LONG TIME RAH RAH!” while the BBC story is “THIS BAD! BBC LOVE SADDAM! LIE THAT ALL HATE U.S.” doesn’t mean that anyone else shares this obsessive focus or thinks one article contradicts the other in the least. The BBC, from what I’ve seen, has done a better job than any other media source in presenting the full range of Iraqi public opinion without pretending that it is unitary or homogenously distributed accross the country.

You’ve also missed two key points here.

  1. I’m not arguing with you over whether the BBC is left-biased or even anti-war biased. It may well be for all I know. I am arguing against the specific examples and tactics you are using. Simply shifting your line of attack to other examples is, in that context, diversionary.

  2. the original claim was that the coverage of the BBC is somehow causing causalties. What happened to that claim?

140

december Why would an article about Shatra, a “small southern town, 20 miles north of the city of Nassiriya” be a “rejoinder” to an article on Baghdad? This is to reduce the broad journalistic mission of all of these news organizations who are trying to cover the war to your own narrow obsession. What it would be, if it appears, is a different article.

Baghdad is the big salami here and is going to get a lot more attention than the geopolitically insignificant Shatra. Although the Shatra welcome is newsworthy–as an example of a Southern welcome–it in no way stands in juxtaposition to the ongoing and detailed coverage we should expect and demand on Baghdad.

(Interestingly, a search for Shatra on the BBC finds two 1999 articles that report on the execution of 11 men who were tied to an assassination attempt against the life of Uday Hussein. All of the men were from Shatra.)

Finally, even if the handful of posters who are regularly contributing to this thread spent a few hours a day posting–which I will not do!–we would not be able to substantiate anything like the kind of systematic bias you are alleging. Such a project would require months of a trained sociologist’s or linguist’s or journalist’s time–hopefully with the help of research assistants. So don’t kid yourself.