Archive for category Media Criticism

Well Begun Is Half Done

The campaign against Saddam started with a direct attack on him. A broadcast of somebody claiming to be Saddam (who knows, maybe he even was Saddam, although he looked more like his half-brother) got on Iraqi TV to reassure his people that he had survived. Time will tell.

I hope the campaign is over quickly – the sooner it is over, the fewer casualties all around (Iraqi soldiers and civilians, American soldiers and possibly civilians). My daughter mentioned I didn’t look happy this morning. While I fully support the campaign, I’m not happy about war. Oh, I’ll be elated when it’s over, and happy for all of us, but not now.

The news media is in overdrive. I happened to hit a couple of big media web sites, and headed to their descriptions of weapons. Given all the time leading up to the war, you’d think they’d do a better job. CNN’s descriptions were extremely brief. CBS had a great picture but unidentified picture of SLAM ER and no description; while their descriptions were lengthy they seemed to be cut and paste jobs of numerous press releases giving rise to problems of verb tense and out of date information. ABC did a better job and even managed to describe SLAM ER.

The guys on Fox’s morning show assured us that the people operating that camera providing a view of Baghdad were perfectly safe – I think he has more faith in the precision of our armament than even our armed forces do.

There are lots of rumors swirling around; my favorite was yesterday’s claim that Tariq Azziz had either been killed or defected. It soon went the way of the report on 911 that a bomb had blown up at the State Department. That’s what I love about the media – always insisting they are accurate and don’t put anything on until it’s verified, yet unable to ever separate the wheat from the chaff on a breaking story, and rarely bothering to correct their old mistakes more than once. If you make the mistake of not watching/listening, the only way to tell what was accurate and what wasn’t is that they eventually stop repeating the inaccurate. Unfortunately, there is a lag while you try to figure out if the information is no longer operable, or they just haven’t gotten around to repeating it yet.

Tags: ,

Will Wonders Ever Cease?

This morning what greeted my eyes but a James Lileks column on the op-ed page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch (yes, the link takes you to something called StlToday, which is the Post’s attempt to be a St. Louis Portal). The Post is continuing its efforts to move up from a fourth-rate paper to a third rate paper (where they’d be joining the NYT, incidentally).

Tags:

Gotta Love Drudge

Columbia disintegrates upon re-entry; Colin Powell is calling the UN to battle; North Korea is warning the US of total war. Drudge links to a story about the decrease of shark attacks, which claims the decrease is due to a worldwide economic slowdown. Or it could just be the media has too many real stories to report on.

This Is Gonna Be Good

Everybody’s least favorite hometown paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (full disclosure, I’m a subscriber, but only because my wife says we save more in coupons than spend on the paper), will be negotiating a new union contract as the last one has expired. Management had a 37 page list of demands; the union, AKA the Newspaper Guild, responded by asking for an 18.6% wage hike. Oh, this is gonna be good — well, better than the paper, anyway.

Tags:

The Victimization of Nuns Continues

First the nuns were sexually abused, and now they are suffering media abuse. The Post Dispatch ran a hatchet job about a survey that examined sexual victimization among Catholic nuns. Why do I say a hatchet job? Let me count the ways.

I believe that it’s terrible that any woman, or man, is sexually victimized – even one. But we need an accurate accounting if we want to understand the problem. The article claims that 40% of nuns have been victimized by priests or other nuns. How does it reach that figure? The survey asked the nuns if they had been victims of (1) childhood sex abuse (18.6%), (2) sexual exploitation (12.5%), or (3) sexual harassment (9.3%), and then lumps all three together. So the maximum number would be 40%; but since only 10% of the childhood sex abuse, less than 75% of the sexual exploitation (which includes consensual sex), and less than half of the sexual harassment took place at the hands of nuns, priests, or other religious person (whatever that is), the figure drops to 15.9% — which is still 15.9% too large, but at least that’s a more accurate number – and less than half of what is claimed. Clearly the article is trying to maximize the number and put it at the feet of the Catholic church. The correct headline should be that 40% of nuns who have been sexually victimized were victimized by anyone in the church – not that 40% of all nuns have been victimized by people in the church. 

According to the article, the Catholic church discovered in 1996 that nuns had been sexually victimized, and despite running the results of the survey in a couple of religious research journals, buried it by not putting out a press release. This tells us that reporters look to press releases for stories, and not religious journals. I knew this already because I’ve discovered via the internet that stories, even at papers like the New York Times or the Washington Post, are often nothing more than lightly reformatted press releases with one or two outside experts comments added. What a clever way to hide something – put it in plain sight. What a novel concept – unless you actually notify the press, you’re hiding something.

The final problem with the story as run in the Post is that there were no comparison of victimization rate to any other group, like women in general. The article gives us no idea whether you’re more likely to be a victim of sexual “trauma” as a nun than as a woman in general. The article give us no idea if nuns are more likely to be sexually harassed in houses of worship than women in places of work. The Toronto star throws out the figure that 20 to 27 percent of all women have been sexually abused as children (a figure that quite frankly is alarmingly high) — which indicates that nuns are on the low side — but no word on sexual exploitation or sexual harassment. Its just one big scare story designed to cash in on the sex molesting priest scandal. Its important – does the Catholic church need to clean up its act, or does all of society?

I can’t speak for the study itself, but the Post ran a letter from Janet Lauritsen, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice who ripped the methodology of the study – only certain orders participated, less than half of those in the order responded and concluded that it was unrepresentative and that no estimate of victimization could be drawn.

No doubt this story will get plenty of play, even though its biased, misleading, and provides no context. But then, every media consumer is used to that kind of reporting.

UPDATE:

Today the paper ran a letter from one of the original researchers of the study refuting the claims of poor methodology and labeling the other academics claims “fatuous”. Oooh, academic catfight. Is a 50% non-response rate significant? Beats me. But this letter says the post left off two categories of sexual victimization included in the study: intra-community sexual harassment and other sexual abuse (including rape and sexual assault). So I still think the Post has done a lousy, sensationalist job of covering the survey.

Tags: ,

Media Bias in Action

The debate over embryonic stem cell research came up in the Talent/Carnahan debate the other night. Just to get it out, I’m against abortion except to save the life of the mother and against destroying embryo’s for research because I believe what starts at conception is a human being and thus worth protection; the only objection I have to reproductive cloning is that it currently represents non-consensual experimentation on a human. Anyway, what I’m trying to point out is how on the one hand, the media is all up in arms about how troglodyte pro-lifers are blocking embryonic stem cell research while far more sympathetic to efforts by a different group blocking the use of genetically modified foods. And yet on the one hand you have a principled objection about killing people (whether you agree or not, that’s the objection) over research that would work better with adult stem cells both ethically and medically and which while promising hasn’t actually moved beyond research, and on the other the media shows a great deal of respect for an objection based on fear of technology over use of something that would have an immediate and obvious impact on reducing starvation and improving people’s health through better diet. And that tells me where the sympathies of the people in the media are, and how important is to have diversity of opinion in the media to combat bias; relying on a near uniformly biased group to self-control their way to objectivity just doesn’t work. Far better to have multiple sources provide multiple biases and viewpoints.

Tags:

The LA times is reporting that MSNBC is thinking about how to restructure its lineup. Given how awful there ratings are, I’m not surprised. I do have to chuckle at this paragraph in the article: 

“As for Phil Donahue, whose widely heralded return to television hasn’t lifted the channel as much as had been hoped, he is expected to spend much more time in front of a studio audience, as he did in his long-running daytime talk show, starting later in the month.”

I thought Donahue’s ratings were so lousy, the ratings hadn’t lifted at all, they’d sunk. And I suppose the studio audience is just a way to dilute Phil (which is the problem with the show), but what they need to put him in front of is a TV in his living room, and not in front of a camera in a studio, audience or no audience. Heck, you or I could get better ratings than Phil’s getting, and I don’t even know who you are.

Tags: ,