while supporting a bill that would gut that military by causing veterans to leave, while increasing the number of new, untrained recruits.
From a recent editorial:
This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. [emphasis added].
Big Lizards has an informative and entertaining explanation of why it is ludicrous for anyone supporting this bill to claim they want a "sturdier" military.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Do Figure
An article in the May 26 NYT contained the following paragraph:
But the tactical success of the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for American soldiers. Last year was the bloodiest in the five-year history of the conflict, with more than 900 dead, and last month, 52 perished, making it the bloodiest month of the year so far. So far in May, 18 have died.
Here is a bar graph of American deaths in Iraq. You can enlarge the graph by clicking on it. (Raw data are available here.)
As you can plainly see, US casualties went way down after the surge troops finished arriving in June, 2007. So the the first (thesis) sentence of the quoted paragraph is an outright lie.
As for the rest, the NYT is making true but misleading statements designed to cause the reader to believe the false thesis. That is, it is true that 2007 was the bloodiest year of the war for American soldiers. But this is because of casualties suffered during the first half of the year (which in turn were caused by the wave of violence instigated by Al Qaeda). And that wave of violence, which started in 2006, was a reason for the surge, not the result of it.
And yes, April has been the worst month of 2008 so far in terms of American casualties. But any year will have a worst month. So regardless of whether the worst month of 2008 so far were January, February, March, April, or May, this would not tell us anything about how successful the surge was or wasn't in terms of reducing American casualties. So it is misleading for the NYT to publish this paragraph in a way that makes it appear that this sentence supports its thesis.
Hat tip: Countercolumn
Monday, May 26, 2008
Pure Fantasy on the Editorial Page
The New York Times wants the USA to lose in Iraq. But today's editorial takes this a step further.
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break . . . .
There are a lot of problems with this editorial, as Big Lizards explains here. But I want to focus on their statement that the Iraq war is "unwinnable".
Has the NYT's editorial board been reading their own news pages? For example, we have this article about how things are going in Basra:
"unwwinnable", indeed!
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break . . . .
There are a lot of problems with this editorial, as Big Lizards explains here. But I want to focus on their statement that the Iraq war is "unwinnable".
Has the NYT's editorial board been reading their own news pages? For example, we have this article about how things are going in Basra:
Divining a Lesson in Basra
BASRA, Iraq — On Basra’s Corniche, the boulevard past which the mingled waters of the Tigris and Euphrates flow into the Persian Gulf, there is a collective sense of relief these days.
With the death squads in hiding and Islamist militias evicted from their strongholds by the Iraqi Army, few doubt that this once-lawless port is in better shape than it was just two months ago.
And then there is this article about how things are going in Sadr City: Iraqi Troops Take Charge of Sadr City in Swift Push
BAGHDAD — Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City on Tuesday as the Iraqi government sought to establish control over the district, a densely populated Shiite enclave in the Iraqi capital.
The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces, was the first determined effort by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to assert control over the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood, which has been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric.
The operation comes in the wake of the government’s offensive in Basra, in southern Iraq, which for the time being seems to have pacified that city and restored government control.
The Iraqi forces met no significant resistance. By midday, they had driven to a key thoroughfare that bisects Sadr City and taken up positions near hospitals and police stations, institutions that the Iraqi government is seeking to put under its control.
By early afternoon, Iraqi troops were stationed in large numbers in many parts of the district. Numerous Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers were parked on street corners, with relaxed-looking soldiers sleeping in their vehicles or looking out to the street through steel hatches. Other soldiers manned checkpoints, some of them chatting with children . . .
"unwwinnable", indeed!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The NYT's Contrasting Treatment of Conservative and Liberal Books on the Iraq War
Power Line has a post on the New York Times' failure to review or even mention an important new book on the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, it is a conservative book. In the Times' world, it is convenient to pretend this book does not exist.
I thought it would be interesting to follow up by looking at the Times' treatment of other books on the Iraq war. I did a search on Amazon for the top books on the Iraq war. Here are the first five books that came up. All five were about the most recent Iraq war. I classified the books as liberal/antiwar, conservative/pro-US, or neither.
1. Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks. Liberal.
2. War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas J. Feith. Conservative.
3. Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope by Michael Yon. Conservative.
4. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes. Liberal.
5. House to House: an Epic Memoire of War by David Bellavia. Conservative.
I then used searches on the Times' site to determine how the Times covered each book. Here is what came up:
Liberal Books:
Fiasco
The NYT published two separate reviews of Fiasco:
One
Two
A search came up with approximately fifteen articles that mentioned Fiasco. I say "approximately" because with 32 hits from the search (some of which are not articles), it takes a fair amount of work to determine exactly which hits correspond to articles.
Some quotations from the reviews give an idea of the NYT's attitude towards the book:
devastating new book about the American war in Iraq
absolutely essential reading
gives the reader a lucid, tough-minded overview of this tragic [war] that stands apart from earlier assessments in terms of simple coherence and scope.
offers a comprehensive and illuminating portrait of the willful blindness of the Bush administration to Iraqi realities
Ricks has done his homework
In general, the Times' coverage of Fiasco was extensive and approving.
The Three Trillion Dollar War
The NYT has mentioned this book twice. In an editorial entitled The Suffering of Soldiers, the Times mentioned the book in the following sentence:
As the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes made clear in “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” their analysis of Iraq, the medical toll of a war rises in a swelling curve for many decades after the shooting stops.
An opinion piece about the war entitled The $2 Trillion Nightmare extensively quoted the author to make the point that the war was costly. One example:
Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”
Conservative Books:
War and Decision:
An opinion piece about a speech by Feith mentioned the existence of the book. The piece described the author, the speech, and the audience
The dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet
The dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet
Former Rummy gopher
wooly-headed hawks
an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss
The NYT also published a brief opinion piece by Feith and mentioned the book's existence in its description of Feith. The piece, which is entitled "Legislation's Limits", makes the point that Congress should examine more than just legislation when deciding how effective or ineffective the Iraqi government has been. The timing is interesting -- earlier, the Times had extensively criticized the Iraqi government for failing to pass important legislation. Now that the Iraqi government has started to pass such legislation, the NYT needs to shift focus in order to maintain its criticism.
As for the other two conservative books, the NYT has not mentioned their existence at all.
Analysis
The contrast is interesting, isn't it? The NYT made approving use of both liberal books. In one case, the use was extensive; in the other, it was minimal. As for the conservative books, the NYT completely ignored two of them. The third (War and Decision) was mentioned in one lengthy piece mocking its author, and mentioned neutrally in once opinion piece which the Times was using to shift the focus away from an area which it had criticized in the past, now that successes were being had in that area.
I thought it would be interesting to follow up by looking at the Times' treatment of other books on the Iraq war. I did a search on Amazon for the top books on the Iraq war. Here are the first five books that came up. All five were about the most recent Iraq war. I classified the books as liberal/antiwar, conservative/pro-US, or neither.
1. Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks. Liberal.
2. War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas J. Feith. Conservative.
3. Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope by Michael Yon. Conservative.
4. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes. Liberal.
5. House to House: an Epic Memoire of War by David Bellavia. Conservative.
I then used searches on the Times' site to determine how the Times covered each book. Here is what came up:
Liberal Books:
Fiasco
The NYT published two separate reviews of Fiasco:
One
Two
A search came up with approximately fifteen articles that mentioned Fiasco. I say "approximately" because with 32 hits from the search (some of which are not articles), it takes a fair amount of work to determine exactly which hits correspond to articles.
Some quotations from the reviews give an idea of the NYT's attitude towards the book:
devastating new book about the American war in Iraq
absolutely essential reading
gives the reader a lucid, tough-minded overview of this tragic [war] that stands apart from earlier assessments in terms of simple coherence and scope.
offers a comprehensive and illuminating portrait of the willful blindness of the Bush administration to Iraqi realities
Ricks has done his homework
In general, the Times' coverage of Fiasco was extensive and approving.
The Three Trillion Dollar War
The NYT has mentioned this book twice. In an editorial entitled The Suffering of Soldiers, the Times mentioned the book in the following sentence:
As the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes made clear in “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” their analysis of Iraq, the medical toll of a war rises in a swelling curve for many decades after the shooting stops.
An opinion piece about the war entitled The $2 Trillion Nightmare extensively quoted the author to make the point that the war was costly. One example:
Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”
Conservative Books:
War and Decision:
An opinion piece about a speech by Feith mentioned the existence of the book. The piece described the author, the speech, and the audience
The dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet
The dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet
Former Rummy gopher
wooly-headed hawks
an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss
The NYT also published a brief opinion piece by Feith and mentioned the book's existence in its description of Feith. The piece, which is entitled "Legislation's Limits", makes the point that Congress should examine more than just legislation when deciding how effective or ineffective the Iraqi government has been. The timing is interesting -- earlier, the Times had extensively criticized the Iraqi government for failing to pass important legislation. Now that the Iraqi government has started to pass such legislation, the NYT needs to shift focus in order to maintain its criticism.
As for the other two conservative books, the NYT has not mentioned their existence at all.
Analysis
The contrast is interesting, isn't it? The NYT made approving use of both liberal books. In one case, the use was extensive; in the other, it was minimal. As for the conservative books, the NYT completely ignored two of them. The third (War and Decision) was mentioned in one lengthy piece mocking its author, and mentioned neutrally in once opinion piece which the Times was using to shift the focus away from an area which it had criticized in the past, now that successes were being had in that area.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
A tale of two gaffes (again)
If you read the New York Times, you know all about Dan Quayle's inability to spell "potato." Indeed, a search for articles containing the words "Quayle" and "potatoe" brings up 24 articles on the Times site.
So, when Obama said that he had been in "fifty-seven states, I think one left to go . . . . Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to", precedent would suggest that the Times should have reported on this regularly and often.
Of course they didn't. As far as I can tell, they haven't mentioned it at all. When I searched for articles containing the words "Obama" and "fifty-seven" on the Times' site, I did find three articles. But none of them mentioned the gaffe.
So, when Obama said that he had been in "fifty-seven states, I think one left to go . . . . Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to", precedent would suggest that the Times should have reported on this regularly and often.
Of course they didn't. As far as I can tell, they haven't mentioned it at all. When I searched for articles containing the words "Obama" and "fifty-seven" on the Times' site, I did find three articles. But none of them mentioned the gaffe.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
"Bogus" arguments about who loves America
In an opinion piece, the Times said this today:
And yet there’s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness — fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They’re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex.
I have highlighted the part I want to take issue with in this post. What, exactly, is "bogus" about the arguments over who really loves America?
Rev. Wright
Michelle Obama
And yet there’s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness — fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They’re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex.
I have highlighted the part I want to take issue with in this post. What, exactly, is "bogus" about the arguments over who really loves America?
Rev. Wright
Michelle Obama
The NYT Mischaracterizes the dispute between Obama and McCain
over talking, without preconditions, with leaders of rogue nations.
To make a long story short, the Times blog left off the "without preconditions" part, then went on to quote Obama's attempt to justify himself, also leaving off the "without preconditions" part. For the long version, see the writeup at Big Lizards (who broke the story).
To make a long story short, the Times blog left off the "without preconditions" part, then went on to quote Obama's attempt to justify himself, also leaving off the "without preconditions" part. For the long version, see the writeup at Big Lizards (who broke the story).
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Big Lie Campagin continues
Here is the Times on Saturday, describing Al Qaeda in Iraq:
Iraqi and American security forces believe that Mosul is the last urban stronghold of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign-led.
As documented here, the Times frequently describes Al Qaeda in Iraq in precisely the above terms. As usual, the Times gives no evidence to support its claim that the group is "homegrown". And as usual, it ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- much of which is summarized at the above link.
Iraqi and American security forces believe that Mosul is the last urban stronghold of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign-led.
As documented here, the Times frequently describes Al Qaeda in Iraq in precisely the above terms. As usual, the Times gives no evidence to support its claim that the group is "homegrown". And as usual, it ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- much of which is summarized at the above link.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
A tale of two gaffes
If you are a regular reader of the New York Times, you know that John McCain mistakenly said that Iran has been supporting Al Qaeda. You know this because the NYT reported it several times. Here, in no particular order, are some NYT articles which report McCain's error.
one
two
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
One might formulate the hypothesis that the NYT believes that gaffes by Presidential candidates are newsworthy. If, for example, John McCain were to say that the USA can't invade Iran because we don't have enough Arabic translators, one imagines the NYT would be quick to point out that Iran's principal language, Persian (also known as Farsi), is unrelated to Arabic.
Recently, Barack Obama gave us a test of this hypothesis. Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cape Girardeau, MO, on May 13, 2008, Obama started to make the point that by having troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US was overstretching its capacity for Arabic translators. Obama was forgetting that Arabic is not a major language in Afghanistan. The major languages there are Dari (a dialect of Persian) and Pashtun, followed by Uzbek, Turkmen, and several other minor languages.
Now Obama got around to correcting himself. So his confusion was only momentary. If you are interested in seeing exactly what happened, here is a link to the video.
Still, a gaffe is a gaffe, and it ought to be newsworthy. Like McCain's gaffe, Obama's showed confusion about local politics and culture. And how did the New York Times treat it?
They didn't. If you go to the NYT's search page, and search for Obama Afghanistan Arabic, you do get two hits, but they are both from before May 13, when Obama made his mistake.
And by the way, returning to the NYT's coverage of McCain's Al Qaeda gaffe, eight mentions were apparently not enough. Here are some more:
nine
ten
eleven
And that's not all. In link number six above, the NYT claimed that McCain repeated his gaffe at an April meeting of the Foreign Armed Services Committee. The only problem with that one is that, as Power Line reported here, he didn't.
It seems that, when it comes to gaffes by Presidential candidates, the NYT's treatment is far from even handed.
one
two
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
One might formulate the hypothesis that the NYT believes that gaffes by Presidential candidates are newsworthy. If, for example, John McCain were to say that the USA can't invade Iran because we don't have enough Arabic translators, one imagines the NYT would be quick to point out that Iran's principal language, Persian (also known as Farsi), is unrelated to Arabic.
Recently, Barack Obama gave us a test of this hypothesis. Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cape Girardeau, MO, on May 13, 2008, Obama started to make the point that by having troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US was overstretching its capacity for Arabic translators. Obama was forgetting that Arabic is not a major language in Afghanistan. The major languages there are Dari (a dialect of Persian) and Pashtun, followed by Uzbek, Turkmen, and several other minor languages.
Now Obama got around to correcting himself. So his confusion was only momentary. If you are interested in seeing exactly what happened, here is a link to the video.
Still, a gaffe is a gaffe, and it ought to be newsworthy. Like McCain's gaffe, Obama's showed confusion about local politics and culture. And how did the New York Times treat it?
They didn't. If you go to the NYT's search page, and search for Obama Afghanistan Arabic, you do get two hits, but they are both from before May 13, when Obama made his mistake.
And by the way, returning to the NYT's coverage of McCain's Al Qaeda gaffe, eight mentions were apparently not enough. Here are some more:
nine
ten
eleven
And that's not all. In link number six above, the NYT claimed that McCain repeated his gaffe at an April meeting of the Foreign Armed Services Committee. The only problem with that one is that, as Power Line reported here, he didn't.
It seems that, when it comes to gaffes by Presidential candidates, the NYT's treatment is far from even handed.
The NYT's reports on a French ring that sent fighters to "homegrown" Al Qaeda
The New York times continues to routinely describe Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [i.e, Iraq] as "homegrown". We expose this campaign here. For a recent example of the NYT's continuing use of the "homegrown" descriptor, see page 2 of this article.
In light of this, this article, also from the New York Times, is strange:
Furthermore, the article says the French sponsors were arrested in 2005, and had been under police surveillance for a least a year at that time. So their activities must have started very soon after the 2003 invasion.
I don't know about you, but this sure doesn't sound like a homegrown Iraqi group to me.
In light of this, this article, also from the New York Times, is strange:
French Court Convicts 7 for Helping to Send Youths to Join Jihadist Fight in Iraq
PARIS — A Paris court sentenced seven men to prison terms of up to seven years on Wednesday for helping to send French youths to fight alongside insurgents in Iraq, ending a four-year investigation into a jihadist recruitment ring.
The men — five French, one Algerian and one Moroccan — were tried on charges including criminal association with intent to commit terrorism.
Jean-Julien Xavier-Rolai, the prosecutor, had accused the group of sending about a dozen young Frenchmen to join Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who was killed in an American airstrike in 2006, after funneling them through radical religious establishments in Syria and Egypt.
If Al Qaeda in Iraq is homegrown, why are they getting fighters from France, after those fighters pass through radical religious establishments in Syria and Egypt?Furthermore, the article says the French sponsors were arrested in 2005, and had been under police surveillance for a least a year at that time. So their activities must have started very soon after the 2003 invasion.
I don't know about you, but this sure doesn't sound like a homegrown Iraqi group to me.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A comprehensive, fact-based overview of media bias
While not about the Times specifically, this overview is easily the best discussion I've seen of media bias in general.
The New York Times puts false words into John McCain's mouth
The New York Times publishes, without challenge, a false assertion by the Obama campaign
The New York Times published a false claim from the Obama campaign. The New York Times did not challenge the claim, or in any way clue its readers in that the claim might be false.
I cannot improve on the way Little Green Footballs has exposed this distortion. See here.
I cannot improve on the way Little Green Footballs has exposed this distortion. See here.
The New York Times publishes a misleading claim of racial bias in the death penalty
[The following post originally appeared here on April 30, 2008.]
Yesterday's New York Times had an article about a study of the death penalty in Harris County, Texas. The article began as follows:
To see what is really going on, you need to look at the study itself. You can find it here. A few facts jump out:
First of all, as the article notes, of 100 defendants indicted for capital crimes in Harris County, 27% of the blacks and 25% of the whites were sentenced to death. No bias there.
However, after controlling for the mitigating and aggravating factors such as the heinousness of the crime, the study found bias.
But the study measured the mitigating and aggravating factors by looking at newspaper coverage of the case! So what if the newspaper coverage depends on the assailant's race? Many people have complained that a murder in a white area is big news, while a murder in a black area is not. So if the white area murderers get more thorough newspaper coverage than the black murderers, the study is going to find more aggravating factors, which makes the white murderers appear "worse" than the black ones, which in turn makes it appear unfair that they are sentenced to death at an equal rate.
That's not all. The study also reports that there were plea bargains in 38% of the cases with white defendants, and only 28% of the cases with black defendants. In capital cases, it is common for the defendant to agree to plead guilty if the prosecutor is willing to take the death penalty off the table. The statistics suggest (but do not prove) that the white defendants are more willing to plea bargain. Now, all other things being equal, a group of defendants that is more willing to plea bargain should be sentenced to death less often. But this is a result of the decisions of the defendant's themselves.
So you have a study which started with a situation that looks raceially neutral (27% of black capital defendants sentenced to death vs. 25% of whites). There are several confounding factors. Based on the newspaper coverage, the heinousness of the murders committed by whites appears to be worse than the heinousness of the murders committed by blacks. So the study controls for heinousness. Based on plea bargaining data, whites appear to be more willing to plea bargain than blacks. But the study's author, who realizes that a conclusion of racial bias will get more press than a conclusion of no racial bias, elects not to control for the defendant's willingness to plea bargain. And lo and behold, the study ends up concluding that there is racial bias.
The study's author is rewarded with coverage in the New York Times.
Yesterday's New York Times had an article about a study of the death penalty in Harris County, Texas. The article began as follows:
About 1,100 people have been executed in the United States in the last three decades. Harris County, Tex., which includes Houston, accounts for more than 100 of those executions. Indeed, Harris County has sent more people to the death chamber than any state but Texas itself.
Yet Harris County’s capital justice system has not been the subject of intensive research — until now. A new study to be published in The Houston Law Review this fall has found two sorts of racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty there, one commonplace and one surprising
The unexceptional finding is that defendants who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill blacks. More than 20 studies around the nation have come to similar conclusions.
But the new study also detected a more straightforward disparity. It found that the race of the defendant by itself plays a major role in explaining who is sentenced to death.
The last sentence (which I have highlighted in bold) is the main point of contention. The article eventually quotes someone who is suspicious of the study's methodology. But a reader would have to go deep into the article to see that quote. And the article fails to point out the worst flaws in the study.To see what is really going on, you need to look at the study itself. You can find it here. A few facts jump out:
First of all, as the article notes, of 100 defendants indicted for capital crimes in Harris County, 27% of the blacks and 25% of the whites were sentenced to death. No bias there.
However, after controlling for the mitigating and aggravating factors such as the heinousness of the crime, the study found bias.
But the study measured the mitigating and aggravating factors by looking at newspaper coverage of the case! So what if the newspaper coverage depends on the assailant's race? Many people have complained that a murder in a white area is big news, while a murder in a black area is not. So if the white area murderers get more thorough newspaper coverage than the black murderers, the study is going to find more aggravating factors, which makes the white murderers appear "worse" than the black ones, which in turn makes it appear unfair that they are sentenced to death at an equal rate.
That's not all. The study also reports that there were plea bargains in 38% of the cases with white defendants, and only 28% of the cases with black defendants. In capital cases, it is common for the defendant to agree to plead guilty if the prosecutor is willing to take the death penalty off the table. The statistics suggest (but do not prove) that the white defendants are more willing to plea bargain. Now, all other things being equal, a group of defendants that is more willing to plea bargain should be sentenced to death less often. But this is a result of the decisions of the defendant's themselves.
So you have a study which started with a situation that looks raceially neutral (27% of black capital defendants sentenced to death vs. 25% of whites). There are several confounding factors. Based on the newspaper coverage, the heinousness of the murders committed by whites appears to be worse than the heinousness of the murders committed by blacks. So the study controls for heinousness. Based on plea bargaining data, whites appear to be more willing to plea bargain than blacks. But the study's author, who realizes that a conclusion of racial bias will get more press than a conclusion of no racial bias, elects not to control for the defendant's willingness to plea bargain. And lo and behold, the study ends up concluding that there is racial bias.
The study's author is rewarded with coverage in the New York Times.
The Big Lie Technique at the New York Times
[Note: the following originally appeared on April 20. 2008 on my prior blog Green Eggs and Bacon.]
I did a google search for New York Times articles containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia". Google says there are "about 3,190" hits! It seems that the New York Times describes Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [or Iraq] as "homegrown" very often.
That many hits are unwieldy. For one thing, it is difficult to tell how many articles generated all those hits. To get a sense of what is really going on, I did an advanced search limited to the past week.
At first, Google said there were "about 177" hits. But when I looked at them more closely, it turned out that there were 12 [correction: 11 -- one of the 12 is old.] articles and one photo description published during the past week containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." These articles are all linked below:
24 Iranians, Held for Illegal Entry, Escape from Iraqi Prison by Alissa J. Rubin
Accounts Differ Sharply on U.S. Attack in Iraq by Alissa J. Rubin
Attacks Kill 39 in Iraq; Massacre Details Emerge by Alissa J. Rubin
Bomb Kills Dozens at Iraqi Funeral by Erica Goode
Bomb Kills U.S. Soldier in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell
Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup by Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Dozens Killed in Bombings in Four Iraqi Cities by Alissa J. Rubin
Execution Case Tests Iraq's Bid to Ease Divide by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and Alissa J. Rubin
Joint Chiefs Nominee Questioned on Iraq by Mark Mazzetti
McCain, Iraq War, and the threat of 'Al Qaeda' by Michael Cooper and Larry Rohter
Pictures of the Day, April 18
Two Different Accounts of Deadly Airstrike in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin
U.S. Investigates Civilian Toll in Airstrike, but holds Insurgents Responsible by Paul von Zielbauer
I've listed the author next to each article. As you can see, five of the twelve articles were written by Alissa J. Rubin. Two were written by Rubin and someone else, and the remaining five were all written by different reporters. In all, a total of nine different reporters contributed to the twelve articles. So whatever is going on, it's not limited to a single reporter, or even to a small group.
Next, I took a look at the sentence which made the Al Qaeda reference. Below, I have reproduced the sentence of each article which refers to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as "homegrown".
They said that the Iraqis who were killed were trying to defend their town from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni militant group that American intelligence believes has foreign leadership.
The group, a homegrown Sunni Arab insurgent organization with some foreign participation, had previously effectively controlled the neighborhood.
American military forces have engaged in major operations in the province for the past month and have succeeded in dislodging from Baquba Sunni extremists associated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a home-grown group with some foreign involvement that has claimed a loose affiliation with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
Sheik Amir Habeeb al-Khaizaran, a member of Parliament whose brother is the head of the Azawi group, said that the two men mourned at the funeral were killed by other members of their tribe who were loyal to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia , the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.
The American military warned Friday that intelligence reports indicated that “numerous” members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership, “have entered the Baghdad area with the purpose of carrying out vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, or suicide-vest attacks.”
But he argued, as he has in the past, that reconciliation was taking place at the local level, and that Shiite and Sunni leaders were beginning to cooperate with one another to fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led.
“The security forces in the province are very good, but their biggest challenge is that they are fighting Qaeda, insurgency and other gangs and armed groups,” said Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Rubaie, the chief of operations for Diyala Province, referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.
If the government executes him, it risks alienating potential allies in the fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign-led.
The officers said the American and Iraqi militaries had made gains against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led.
It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.
American forces also announced that they had killed a man they described as a senior terrorist in an airstrike in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, on Tuesday. The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.
The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign led.
In each case, I have put the group's description in boldface. Interesting, isn't it? Every time, Every time, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is described as "extremist", not "terrorist". Every time, the times claims without evidence that it is "homegrown", without supplying any supporting evidence, and also without mentioning the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And if the patently obvious fact that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is foreign led is mentioned at all, it is attributed to "the American military" or "American intelligence" -- thereby allowing a reader who is suspicious of the American military and intelligence to doubt the truth of that assertion.
I did a google search for New York Times articles containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia". Google says there are "about 3,190" hits! It seems that the New York Times describes Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [or Iraq] as "homegrown" very often.
That many hits are unwieldy. For one thing, it is difficult to tell how many articles generated all those hits. To get a sense of what is really going on, I did an advanced search limited to the past week.
At first, Google said there were "about 177" hits. But when I looked at them more closely, it turned out that there were 12 [correction: 11 -- one of the 12 is old.] articles and one photo description published during the past week containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." These articles are all linked below:
24 Iranians, Held for Illegal Entry, Escape from Iraqi Prison by Alissa J. Rubin
Accounts Differ Sharply on U.S. Attack in Iraq by Alissa J. Rubin
Attacks Kill 39 in Iraq; Massacre Details Emerge by Alissa J. Rubin
Bomb Kills Dozens at Iraqi Funeral by Erica Goode
Bomb Kills U.S. Soldier in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell
Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup by Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Dozens Killed in Bombings in Four Iraqi Cities by Alissa J. Rubin
Execution Case Tests Iraq's Bid to Ease Divide by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and Alissa J. Rubin
Joint Chiefs Nominee Questioned on Iraq by Mark Mazzetti
McCain, Iraq War, and the threat of 'Al Qaeda' by Michael Cooper and Larry Rohter
Pictures of the Day, April 18
Two Different Accounts of Deadly Airstrike in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin
U.S. Investigates Civilian Toll in Airstrike, but holds Insurgents Responsible by Paul von Zielbauer
I've listed the author next to each article. As you can see, five of the twelve articles were written by Alissa J. Rubin. Two were written by Rubin and someone else, and the remaining five were all written by different reporters. In all, a total of nine different reporters contributed to the twelve articles. So whatever is going on, it's not limited to a single reporter, or even to a small group.
Next, I took a look at the sentence which made the Al Qaeda reference. Below, I have reproduced the sentence of each article which refers to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as "homegrown".
They said that the Iraqis who were killed were trying to defend their town from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni militant group that American intelligence believes has foreign leadership.
The group, a homegrown Sunni Arab insurgent organization with some foreign participation, had previously effectively controlled the neighborhood.
American military forces have engaged in major operations in the province for the past month and have succeeded in dislodging from Baquba Sunni extremists associated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a home-grown group with some foreign involvement that has claimed a loose affiliation with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
Sheik Amir Habeeb al-Khaizaran, a member of Parliament whose brother is the head of the Azawi group, said that the two men mourned at the funeral were killed by other members of their tribe who were loyal to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia , the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.
The American military warned Friday that intelligence reports indicated that “numerous” members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership, “have entered the Baghdad area with the purpose of carrying out vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, or suicide-vest attacks.”
But he argued, as he has in the past, that reconciliation was taking place at the local level, and that Shiite and Sunni leaders were beginning to cooperate with one another to fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led.
“The security forces in the province are very good, but their biggest challenge is that they are fighting Qaeda, insurgency and other gangs and armed groups,” said Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Rubaie, the chief of operations for Diyala Province, referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.
If the government executes him, it risks alienating potential allies in the fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign-led.
The officers said the American and Iraqi militaries had made gains against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led.
It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.
American forces also announced that they had killed a man they described as a senior terrorist in an airstrike in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, on Tuesday. The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.
The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign led.
In each case, I have put the group's description in boldface. Interesting, isn't it? Every time, Every time, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is described as "extremist", not "terrorist". Every time, the times claims without evidence that it is "homegrown", without supplying any supporting evidence, and also without mentioning the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And if the patently obvious fact that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is foreign led is mentioned at all, it is attributed to "the American military" or "American intelligence" -- thereby allowing a reader who is suspicious of the American military and intelligence to doubt the truth of that assertion.
The New York Times distorted the Duke Lacrosse Case.
An oldie, but very telling. At a time when it was obvious that the Duke 3 were innocent, the NYT tried to persuade its readers that they might be guilty. For details, see here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)