Arrgh. Today’s Economist got my goat, in one minor blurb. Overall, I’m a fan of this magazine: comprehensive international coverage, top-notch hi-tech analysis, rational and relatively progressive in its outlook. So here’s the blurb, from their brief summaries page, “The world this week:”
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimated that 650,000 more people have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion than would have died if there had been no invasion. The Bush administration said the study was flawed.
Why does this bother me? Well, the Bush administration’s point-of-view got 20% of the words in the blurb, and is presented as if it is a meaningful counterpoint to the study. What is their beef with the methodology of the Lancet study? So far, all Bush has said is “I don’t consider it a credible report” and he declined to give a figure of his own, while admitting that innocent people have died. (Others went further: a spokesman of the British Foreign Office found fault with the methodology, saying that “It is a fairly small sample they have taken and they have extrapolated it across the country.”)
So, on that basis, they give the administration 20% of the words in a summary of the story? To me, this is particularly obnoxious coming from The Economist: these guys live and breath statistics, they understand the methodology of the Lancet study, and the in-depth article in the same issue comes out entirely in favour of the study. And yet, they feel that they have to pander to their Republican audience and dilute the science (or augment the controversy?) when they discuss it in their summary.
Chomsky described similar situations where government statements are vastly overrepresented in media articles, and went on to accuse the media of acting as an adjunct of government. The Economist? It’s definitely not there yet, but it sure made me angry.
As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, this one doesn’t seem quite fair. The Bush administration isn’t just a randomly-selected bystander in this case; they’re the ones accused by the study. Let’s rephrase the article like this:
“Based on a study by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists, George Bush is being tried for mass murder of 650,000 people who have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. Bush is pleading not guilty in the trial.”
Dedicating 20% of your article to the reaction of the accused isn’t bias – it’s just newsworthy. *Not* doing so would be *heavily* biased, as it would lead readers to assume the accused is guilty, regardless of the facts. After all, if they’re not guilty, why is there no counterpoint? The purpose of a balanced news report is to give you the facts that will help you form a well-considered opinion; for an 80-word blurb, the best it can do is help you realize that it’s not a cut-and-dried case and you need to do more research before forming an opinion. It’s hard for any media writer to achieve these goals, but I think they tried pretty hard in this case.
–Avery
Hey, David. Enjoying the site. I certainly have a lot more problems with Chomsky as an authoritative source than The Economist, but I guess that’s neither here nor there.
I will say, though, that I’d have rather The Economist had pointed to the more serious criticisms of the lancet’s report, which even the authors have said is done with political intent. The Iraq Body Count project, for instance, points out that the numbers don’t seem to add up.
http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/d/lancet_reality_checks.pdf
I’m not really interested in ascribing secret motives to the media, but I see The Economist as very reponsible and fair-minded (if opinionated). I’m not sure I buy that a magzine that regularly has editorials that are anti-Rumsfeld, anti-neocon, anti-creationist, pro-immigration, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gun-control, pro-drug-legalization, etc, and that endorsed Kerry at the last election, has suddenly decided to covertly appeal to fans of the Bush administration. No matter what Chomsky says.
Very interesting article, Eric – and it raises some very valid points. I’m now prepared to accept that there is probably some statistical bias in their population sample; I’m definitely in favour of “reality checks” with modelling results. I didn’t much like their conclusions – they close on a note supporting their own approach, counting bodies from media reports. Counts give a lower bound on the figure, but I’d like to see statistical methods used in a sound manner to give a better estimate of the real figure.
As for the media, I’m not (really) criticizing the Economist – I just know that 90% of the media out there will misreport (or more likely, underreport) this story, and I’m really, really unhappy about that. The Economist is my way of escaping from the spin-filled, ill-informed reporting in much mainstream media; if anything (anything!) creeps in to my nice safe reading environment, I get a little upset.
Kind of like a Fox News viewer.
– d