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.
