Why Blogs Make Me Crazy — Even This One
This is not a defense of the New York Times. This is not a defense of the Los Angeles Times. This is not a defense of the United Nations. This is not a commentary on the conflict in the Middle East (though it might come to seem like it, toward the bottom.) And this is not an attack on Patterico.
While this blog contains, I think, a respectable proportion of solid thinkers — including commenters — the tendency of the form to degenerate into a circle jerk is disturbing. Most recent case in point: Patterico’s post on death tolls. He points out that the New York Times says the U.N. has estimated that a fourth of the dead in Gaza have been civilians, and that the Los Angeles Times claims the U.N. estimates 400 of 700 killed have been civilians.
He asks a reasonable enough question: “Is 400/700 anything like one-fourth? I’m no math whiz, but I’m thinking the answer is ‘no.’ So what gives?”
In the comments section, that reasonable-enough question blossoms poisonously into an opportunity to opine that:
- It’s either confirmation that the U.N. is, as we all know, “a bunch of idiots,” or evidence that the “liberal idiots” in the media got it “wrong in their reporting” — “Either way, IDIOTS!!!!”
- “It must be Diplomatic UN Math, also known as DUM.”
- “Apparently the UN just makes up statistics depending on what day of the week it is.”
- “What do you expect from the liberal media, ACCURACY? or ‘equality’ & ‘fairness’?”
And that’s with only six commenters weighing in with seven comments, at the time of this writing. Only one person ventures to answer the question (“Different U.N. sources?”), and one of the withering remarks quoted above even included a link to a source document that might actually have *answered* the question, to a degree. But why bother with that, when it’s so much easier and more fun to snipe?
It’s disheartening to me that many clearly intelligent people seem satisfied — no, *pleased* — to just marinate in the bile of like-minded partisans, adding to the stew without bothering to bring any real intellectual effort to seeing the other side (or, in this case, to simply figure out the facts).
Why *can’t* we just give each other the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming mendacity at every turn? Don’t you get *tired* of this?
So here’s my effort to answer the question at hand:
Gaza is a developing story. Patterico quotes from a New York Times story from Tuesday and a Los Angeles Times story from Wednesday (actually, from Thursday in the Middle East). The numbers are changing.
The United Nations website has a report of a U.N. press conference, dated Wednesday, that says, “Some 218 children and 85 women were among the 660 casualties of the conflict.” Elsewhere, the same report says, “Since the recent ground incursion, the death toll had nearly doubled, with some 40 per cent of the casualties being civilians, according to the most recent estimates.”
I suspect that the proportion of civilians killed has surged in the last day or two, when the school was hit. As Patterico notes, the New York Times story said, “The United Nations has estimated that about one-fourth of those killed were civilians, though there have been no reliable and current figures in recent days.” Note the verb tense, “has estimated”: This appears to be a proportion from perhaps a few days back.
Further, it looks to me like the U.N. may consider only women and young children to be confirmed civilians, which would constitute an undercount of civilians, though possibly not a significant undercount. (I don’t pretend to have the slightest clue how many Gaza men of fighting age are Hamas, and it’s beside the point for this purpose.) That alone would account for discrepancies, if some counts attempt to estimate unconfirmed (adult male) civilians and some don’t.
In any case, none of this militates toward the conclusion that the media or the U.N. are liberal. (Please note: I am not saying the media or the U.N. are or are not liberal! I’m just saying that the commenters are wrong to cite *this* as evidence that they’re liberal.) If, judging from the evidence I’ve found, any of the figures Patterico quotes are wrong, it’s the New York Times’ citation of the U.N.’s probable underestimate that a quarter of the dead are civilians. That scarcely points to the Times’ liberalism; if anything, it would tip in the other direction. (Understand, I’m not saying it points in *any* direction, politically!)
Whew. Well, this is a lot of energy I’ve expended semi-fisking a narrow point that no one is likely to care much about. But I’m trying to use it as a springboard to point out in microcosm what I see as a pervasive problem with blogs and comments.
Thanks for listening (if you did).
Misery loves company. Most readers of this blog are sick and tired of the repeated biases of the media, and enjoy being able to complain about it among others who feel the same way. Along those lines, while this particular case may not be evidence of bias, the existing pattern of bias makes it hard not to jump to that conclusion when it is even possibly the explanation.
It’s just like having a coworker that you know repeatedly lies to you, for whatever reason. Before long, if you’re smart, you’re going to stop believing anything the coworker says without some other evidence, especially when you have some explicit reason to doubt it. In this case, there is an explicit reason to doubt the story’s accuracy, and while there may indeed be another explanation, people are going to first assume that the coworker is lying… the media is just fudging numbers due to their bias.
To expect otherwise from people is, I think, ignoring simple human nature.
Comment by Buzz Killington — 1/8/2009 @ 4:40 am
Bot Rhetorical: I hope you feel better now that you got all that off your chest.
Comment by aunursa — 1/8/2009 @ 6:07 am
Oops: Not
Comment by aunursa — 1/8/2009 @ 6:07 am
Saves time in the long run, really… After this latest round of election with the media – while perhaps not completely intentionally, at least effectively – carrying water for one particular candidate, I think it has gotten to the point where the media so often gets it wrong and makes no effort to correct the error – in the case of the LA Times at least – that we ceased kindly assuming innocence…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 6:09 am
Huh wha? You say something?
Sorry. Someone was gonna say it, so I wanted to get it out of the way.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 6:21 am
I would imagine that many of us do read different sites, and other news outlets, and get some very different information….just this morning, I read an AP article in the local Times-Pickyournose and realized that it’s premise was completely different that the WebBlog info I got on the same material last evening….what it has taught me is to take everything with “a little salt” and give it all a few days to be digested before I make final opinions….
Comment by reff — 1/8/2009 @ 8:41 am
New York Slimes and SMELL A TIMES are BIAS far-left USA equivalent of USSR Pravda. Keep reading that MANURE and it will rot your brain like Hanoi Jane.
Comment by carlitos (channeling krazy kagu) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:57 am
The liberal bias in this case is evidenced not by any individual statistic, but by the fact that the media accepts statistics supplied by Palestinian and UN (which is the same thing) sources, without even hinting at the fact that anything from such sources needs to be greeted with immense skepticism. At this stage, we have no way of actually knowing how many people have been killed, how many of them were fighters whom Hamas claims to be civilians for propaganda purposes (sometimes openly, as in classifying police recruits as civilians), how many were killed directly by Hamas, and how many women and children have actually been killed (Hamas and Hezbollah have a charming habit of recycling corpses, so they can claim two or three victims in place of the actual one) –not to mention no hint of Hamas’ strategy of making women and children human shields, and the fact that most of the obstruction keeping medical aid and food from civilians in Gaza originates with Hamas either keeping it out or siezing it for its own use.
At this point, we have no verified facts to support the idea that more than about 100 civilians (if that) have been killed–the only thing that supports it is the usual experience of high civilian casualty rates in this sort of battle, which Hamas tactics make even higher than normal.
Comment by kishnevi — 1/8/2009 @ 9:57 am
sorry about that
Comment by carlitos — 1/8/2009 @ 9:57 am
I think you have a different view of blog comments than I do. There is no one purpose to me. People can use comments to have an intelligent debate, score points, blow off steam, joke, introduce related issues, and more. Comments enable readers to get to know each other and can influence the discussion in unexpected ways. JD’s “racist” campaign comes to mind.
Obviously some comments are more interesting than others, and sometimes it feels like negative comments ruin a thread. When I feel that way, that’s when I quit reading the comments. It’s the equivalent of Justin Levine’s decision to close comments, except it’s my decision at the commenting level rather than a unilateral decision by the poster. And it’s not long before I’m back — reading the good ones, groaning at the bad ones, and thinking about them all.
Comment by DRJ — 1/8/2009 @ 11:10 am
By the way, I draw the line when I think a commenter’s goal is to intentionally and consistently hurt others with their comments. I’ve only felt that way about 2 people and fortunately both of them are gone.
Comment by DRJ — 1/8/2009 @ 11:13 am
DRJ, you need to look at the recent comments at that “other” blog…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 11:13 am
Which thread?
Comment by DRJ — 1/8/2009 @ 11:17 am
The death toll thread or another one?
Comment by DRJ — 1/8/2009 @ 11:18 am
Okay, I see it. Oddly enough, Levi wasn’t one of the two I was talking about. I still hold out hope he will grow up to be a responsible man.
Comment by DRJ — 1/8/2009 @ 11:19 am
You have far more faith in humanity than I do… Maybe more than I ever did.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 11:22 am
Point(s) well taken. In a simpler story, all to easy to just rest there, as the brick is a brick and the antelope is an antelope. When you cross into the hazy arena of Middle East politics, however, things get real hazy, real fast.
What constitutes a combatant? Important, as all others are presumably civilians. Hamas has no uniforms, everybody carries a weapon, and command and control functions seem more like guidelines and suggestions than actual command and control. Further, as the elected representative government of Gaza, its residents bear some blame for its actions, especially since, barring a response from Israel, those actions are celebrated by the very people now wailing. Say out loud “Dresden”.
My sympathy for the faux-Palestinians stops at birthday parties for murderers of small children; it stops when children’s shows are simple, naked propaganda; it stops when candy is passed out and celebratory fire erupts when another suicide bomber completes their gruseome work.
Can you trust any of the numbers cited? Hell, no. Those generating them have an agenda (and you’re right, Patterico took apples and oranges and said, “hey, what gives?”). Those accepting them as fact do likewise. I know that the IDF has and does go through extraordinary trouble to avoid “collateral damage”. I trust them, and will let the numbers, and Hamas members and supporters, fall where they may. I’ll reserve mt vitriol for the MSM/UN/Liberals when I can show the biased brick as a biased brick. I never have to wait long, anyway.
Comment by Chris — 1/8/2009 @ 12:02 pm
Not Rhetorical,
Thanks for that interesting and thought-provoking post. In all sincerity, I’d ask Scott Jacobs not to be dismissive of this post or viewpoints like it. It is precisely this sort of challenge that helps keep a blog healthy.
Indeed, my post is not so much a complaint about bias as an expression of puzzlement. In my post I simply threw the discrepancy out there, really hoping that someone could explain it to me. I acknowledge that, while the NYT article was written after the school attack, it seems that the numbers cited in that article predate the school attack. But I don’t think the discrepancy is explainable by reference to a change in numbers caused by the school attack; the numbers just aren’t great enough for such a large swing. Some of the other factors you mentioned may present a partial explanation.
But I agree with kishnevi that one of the main problems is that newspapers repeat the figures stated by Hamas or other Palestinian sources without any expression of the need for skepticism. Accepting the word of medical staff is little better; if you go back and look at the post I did on the LAT reporting on a U.S. bombing attack on Ramadi, you’ll see ample reason to be skeptical of reports of civilian injuries from doctors in Iraq. I submit that doctors in Gaza are subject to similar pressures and motivations to lie or fuzz up the numbers.
And that is what drives a lot of us crazy about newspapers.
And what about the idea that Hamas may be reporting the victims of their executions as casualties of the war? Do you really think for one second that they would balk at that?
Comment by Patterico — 1/8/2009 @ 12:56 pm
“Those generating them have an agenda (and youre right, Patterico took apples and oranges and said, hey, what gives?).”
I don’t think I did. I said when the articles were dated and gave the context for the quotes.
In essence, I compared a Day One description of a basket of fruit as 1/4 apples and 3/4 oranges, and another description on Day Two as 4/7 apples, and asked: what gives? And since it seems clear that the mix hadn’t changed that significantly in a day, there has to be something going on. Not Rhetorical has made a stab at starting to get at a partial explanation. But I don’t think I compared apples and oranges, the way you mean it.
Comment by Patterico — 1/8/2009 @ 1:01 pm
And really, I don’t think I am. I just think that, where some sources are concerned, the odds are in your favor if you automatically consider them not just suspect, but likely outright wrong/lies/distortions.
And when it comes to Hamas, I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the sky was blue.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 1:04 pm
You’re all stupid! No, not really.
Not Rhet, I think it’s fair to note that most comments are hasty, often mere jokes, and generally not super well thought out. DRJ’s DUM joke about the UN wasn’t exactly the apex of criticism, but it’s fair at some point of exasperation to just be silly.
That’s what I see comments as… just a place to relax, maybe have an argument, maybe just note you agree, and maybe just tell a blockhead troll that he’s a blockhead troll.
If you really want a valuable discussion, you’re crazy to rely on comments. Make a post, hyperlink to another post, etc. But the comments are an invaluable ingredient… just to get a sense of how the post resonates.
I think Patterico realizes he’s barely even talking with us. He’s talking with the LA Times and prominent bloggers, but just talking to us. He can refer to the comments and see if his message is getting out, but he’s going to save thoughtful commentary for his posts. That may not be ideal, I guess, but I think it’s a good system.
We do need a place to be relaxed and pointlessly express frustration at the DUM UN.
Comment by Joco — 1/9/2009 @ 12:20 am
Another thing that will inflate the civilian death count is that Hamas has been summarily executing Fatah supporters and suspected Israeli sympathizers:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053825.html
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 1/10/2009 @ 10:42 am
“Don’t you get *tired* of this?”
- Not Rhetorical
I did, months ago. That’s why I rarely post comments anymore, and failed to take advantage of posting privileges for “The Jury Talks Back” when they were extended to me. I still swing by once in a while (obviously), just to see what’s going on.
Comment by Leviticus — 1/10/2009 @ 12:58 pm
It’s a shame you don’t come by more often, Leviticus…
You missed some fun while you were gone, even the return (for a moment) of Levi…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/10/2009 @ 3:39 pm
Leviticus,
I’m glad you come by now and then, if only so we know you’re okay.
Steven Den Beste,
I appreciate your link. It provided more detail than I’d read before, and it leaves me with even less hope for the Palestinian people.
Comment by DRJ — 1/10/2009 @ 11:29 pm