Andrew Hagen

The New York Times has another lifestyle piece on gay-marriage. (*) The advent of judicially instaurated gay-marriage will lead to a gay-wedding rush in a town in Massachusetts. The caterers will be busy and so on.

It’s a lifestyle piece. Like most of what the Times prints on gay-marriage, it does not address the debate that is ongoing. It ignores what is really important. The Times write-up is all too typical of mainstream press coverage of the critical social problem of gay-marriage. The press is blind to the actual issues created by this historical, wrenching, premeditated societal alteration. The media just do soft stories and lifestyle pieces. They take the easy road. It’s gutless reporting. This gutlessness greatly aids gay-marriage advocates, because it lets them do what they prefer: continue to avoid the issue of gay-marriage. All they want to talk about is love. No one is against love. Gay-marriage concerns more than love, however. It concerns the architecture of society, and particularly how we raise children.

No revolutionary social change, not even gay-marriage, should get a free pass. We ought to have a debate. So long as the media ignores the debate, they do a disservice to the country.

Where is the hard-hitting journalism that will actually address the many controversial issues raised by gay-marriage? What courageous journalist will file that report?

Update: 12 June 2005. The then-ombudsman of the New York Times later agreed with me that his paper’s coverage of gay marriage as a lifestyle was a biased practice. (†)

False stories are spreading in Turkey of Americans raping Iraqis. (*) The reports are unsubstantiated. They cite Susan Block, an American writer who last April described the liberation of Iraq as the “rape of Iraq.” She meant that only as a metaphor. (†) Unfortunately, these rumors appear to have partially inspired the terrorist attacks in Turkey last November.

The rumors need to be quashed with a steady dose of the truth. The alleged rapes never happened.

Antiwar activists who use inflammatory metaphors such as “the rape of Iraq” need to stop for a moment and reconsider.

Weekly news magazine Time selects the American Soldier for its Person of the Year. (*) Formerly named “Man of the Year,” it highlights an important newsmaker, particularly one with a significant impact that year. Technically speaking, it is not an award. Some villains have been Man of the Year. (†) Most of the selectees have been positive figures, however.

There is no question that the American military deserves to be named. Thanks to the American military fighting alongside coalition partners, Saddam Hussein was ejected from power and captured, Iraq was liberated, and steps were taken toward the rebuilding of that great country.

American servicemen and women do deserve an award for their distinctive valor, especially in 2003. To begin to award their virtues in the field, we should live up to our promises to veterans. We should also create a national memorial to all of the troops who fought Saddam.

Marines often prefer the term troops to soldiers, but I hope they and all members of the armed forces see themselves as part of the selection for Person of the Year, as they rightfully are.

Seemingly tedious issues vex me.

One of the poorest understood and most widely relied upon subjects is statistics. In modern society, the educational system should teach basic statistics to all pupils. Unfortunately, it does not. A primer is online. (*)

Three of the most common offenses are a misuse of percentages, statistical surveys of factual questions, and the employment of web polls for anything other than entertainment.

Every educated person knows something about percentages. The trouble is that so many people do not understand the fundamentals of the concept. Take a person who flips a coin 1,000 times, recording the results of each toss. Let’s say the coin is perfectly balanced. Let’s say that there were 550 heads, and 450 tails. That is, 55% of the tosses came up heads. Now he prepares to toss the coin again. What is the probability of heads in this toss? 55%? No. It is 50%. This is because in probability the past does not matter. There is always a 50% chance of heads, no matter how many heads or tails came before.

Another common, glaring error is the use of a percentage to characterize an upcoming event. Say one sports team is playing another. The first team has ten victories and no losses. The second has ten losses and no victories. A sports commentator might say something like, “The first team has got a 75% chance of winning this game.” Yet, there is no validity in that statement at all. It is unfortunate that this mistake really happens. It happens every day and in all walks of life. Think about it. How many games are these teams playing? Just one. They are not playing four times. Only once. Therefore, at the end of their playing the game, one team will be 1–0 against the other team; while the other team will be 0–1 against the first team. Therefore, the actual chance of victory is 100% in favor of one team or another.

Instead of saying, “this event will probably happen,” say “this event will happen because…” or “this event will happen if….” The misuse of percentages tells your audience nothing of what you really know. Tell your audience why you think what you think.

Sometimes perfectly valid, scientific polls are taken of whether the public believes in certain facts. The trouble is the results seem to have more importance than they really do. For example, imagine a poll that found that 83% of American adults believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when his regime was attacked in March 2003. (I just made this figure up.) Why would it matter? Such a poll has no bearing in any way on whether that is a true statement or a false one. Popular perceptions cannot make a false statement true or true statement false. Perhaps in some cases such a survey could be of help in understanding why other popular opinions are what they are. Surveys of factual beliefs should be carefully framed when presented. Commonly, however, they are presented as if they were in some way intrinsically important.

The last is the worst of all. Web polls are inherently untrustworthy. (†) First, web polls are frequently “freeped.” That is, groups of people who support one position or another, sound or unsound (”We must stop flouridating the water!”), can network online and all take the poll together. This skews the results. Second, polls are frequently sabotaged by those with basic technical skills. They are able to vote more than once. Finally, even if such elementary issues were reckoned with, web polls are open to anyone with a modem, and to no one without. As a result, the poll taker cannot know whether his sample is normally distributed. Most likely, it is not. A scientific poll requires careful design. A web poll requires five minutes and no thought. Draw your own conclusions as to their comparative validity.

Just going through the mantra of “It’s unscientific” is not enough. Major television news networks, newspapers and other sources of information to the public routinely trumpet the results of their dreadful web polls, doing the minuet of it being “unscientific.”

It is time to face the reality. Web polls are not merely unscientific. They are lies. Anyone who believes in a web poll, or uses it for anything other than the object of comedy should be ashamed, embarrassed, and deeply shaken at his having falling into an abyss of avoidable deception.

Some defend web polls as “participation.” That is bunk. Sheer unadulterated bunk. Web polls are a way of fabricating what popular perceptions really are. They provide only the illusion of participation.

Benjamin Disraeli had the privilege of not living to see web polls. If he had, he might have remarked that there are four kinds of lies, “Lies; damn lies; statistics; and those damnable abominations of mendacity, web polls.”

The great, astounding levels of statistical ignorance that are everywhere abundant is a danger to the continued freedom and prosperity of our modern society. Our educational system must teach every student basic statistics. We adults must continue to educate ourselves. For all that is at stake, we must stamp out statistical insanity.

Update: 20 December 2003. Linked by Walloworld. (‡)

Now that the most onerous provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation (BCRA) have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, Robert Tagorda suggests that large pressure groups such as the NRA will own television networks to get the message out. Newspapers and magazines will be owned by groups like the Sierra Club. (*)

That doesn’t sound pleasant.

Years ago, a young columnist was hired by the Forum (*), the mainstream newspaper of Fargo, North Dakota. Chuck Klosterman wrote about pop culture.
(more…)

The Associated Press reports on the debate over why Nielsen ratings are sharply down this year in the coveted 18–34 male demographic. Some say it is a statistical blip, but others, like me, would say it is a real decline. (*) Yet, this gives me cognitive dissonance. I thought the networks didn’t want any male 18–34 viewers. They really want us to watch? Wow.

Well, then how about using a few 18–34 year old actors in your shows? In show after show, there are few of them. Actors tend to be baby boomers or older, or Generation Y or younger. If you want to see Generation Xers, you have to watch sports, reality TV, or CNN Headline News. The cast of Friends is in their upper 30s, other than Jennifer Aniston. (Brad Pitt is 40+). Aniston is Gen-X, but she is not male. There are many Generation X movie stars, like Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. They are known to have box office success.

How about some relevant shows? Our country is engaged in a protracted war on terrorism that experts say will last for decades. These early years are a critical phase. How many television shows address this topic? I can think of one, 24. That seems to be doing well. There is also Alias, but there the terrorists tend to be Europeans speaking in haughty British accents. We all know that the real enemy doesn’t speak in a British accent, although a few of them are indeed Europeans. Most shows are sitcoms and legal, police, and hospital dramas. They might address the War on Terrorism on a very special episode, but even that is rare.

A counterpoint is that the news channels like CNN and MSNBC aren’t doing that well in the ratings. This refutes itself. Look at what they cover: Michael Jackson, Laci Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and countless other pointless, irrelevant stories. Guess which news channel has the best ratings? Could it be the same channel that devotes more time to the War on Terrorism than does any other channel? Could it be Fox News? Of course it is.

Additionally, multiculturalism is boring. I am sick of every show having one character of each kind. Life is not always Noah’s Ark. Have some variety, but don’t shove it down our throats.

Generation X prizes relevancy, but it is too unclubbable to be more easily characterized. My suggestion to television executives is to get some perspective. Why should we watch? Why should we care? Why does it matter when it has little to do with our lives?

In short, television executives are putting out a bad product that is geared away from male 18–34 viewers. Low ratings, especially in that category, should be expected.

Update: 4 December 2003. Jonah Goldberg is worth reading on the subject. (†)

In Britain it may very well be that it is a crime to think that the Queen should be deposed. In America, however, freedom of thought is rightfully unlimited.

Time’s decision to picture the President with a black eye on the cover of its magazine (*) is not against the law. As an independent publication, neither does Time have any duty of loyalty to the President. What the magazine has breached is something less, yet something substantial—its decorum.

The politics of personal destruction, the invective, the anger, and the coarsening of the public discourse are all threatening to get out of control. The Democrats defended Clinton from personal attacks, and now attack Bush with them. The Republicans are the same in mirror reverse. It does not help the country to conduct ourselves this way. We should change.

The Pulitzer Prize Board has decided to not revoke Walter Duranty’s 1932 Pulitzer, even though it is a prize given for apologetics of Stalin’s regime written in willful disregard of Stalin’s mass murder. (*)

This controversy has erupted around the New York Times, as it published Duranty’s filings. (†)

When a people suffers mass murder and a famous reporter who knows about it doesn’t report it writes a glorification of the regime that is mass murdering them, and then wins a major prize, those people tend to be unhappy. (‡) As well they should.

The Times commissioned Mark von Hagen (§) (no relation) to write an eight page report on the subject. He recommended revocation of the prize. Unfortunately, I can’t find this report online, even though some newspaper reports summarize it. If anyone has a link to it, I’d be grateful.

Unless the prize is somehow revoked or returned, the reputation of the New York Times will continue to sink.

Update: 4 May 2004. I found von Hagen’s report online. (**)

Recently, I was going to write on the question of whether there is any possibility that a video or film presentation of non-fictional occurrences can avoid distorting the reality of those occurrences. Of course, the positivists would say that no representation of reality can avoid distortion, because we all see the world through our different lenses. This view has been extensively critiqued and refuted by Roy Bhaskar, a philosopher who people will be hearing more about in the future, Social reality can be known and understood by men and women, writes Bhaskar.

So my question is whether it can be known or understood through video or film. Perhaps human nature has us programmed to well understand the abstract and the conceptual through the use of language, and through the use of our natural eyesight and other senses. Corrective lenses can aid eyesight for those of us that need them. We see things happen. We have a sense of time. We learn to make sense of what we see.

The movie makers and film crews and documentary directors and TV news crews have tools at their disposal. They capture images of reality, edit them, and then present them as if it happened in the way it is presented, even though it never does.

Live coverage might be different, though.

It does not take an education to watch television or a movie. You just sit there and watch. Television is not interactive. You cannot ask questions about what is happening.

We know that it is possible to make a distorting video presentation. We know about Triumph of the Will, JFK, and other works of political propaganda. The question is: is it possible in the making of a nonfiction film or video news broadcast to not make something that is in essence propaganda?

I’m not sure. In his book Think a Second Time, Dennis Prager has a useful discussion. He notices that one of the problems of TV news coverage is what it does not show. How do you get video reports out of totalitarian countries? In short, you don’t. News coverage is dominated by all the things that go wrong in the free nations of the world. Radio, newspapers, magazines are all different. Prager suggests not watching TV news for a month. Then, see if you’re smarter. I’m going to try that.

So I leave it here for now. Is there something about human nature, some susceptibility, some vulnerability, that makes us easily tricked by nonfictional video?

Despite numerous recent problems in the quality of journalism at the New York Times, it remains the country’s best newspaper. (*)

Unfortunately, it has reduced the scope of public access to online articles. Most articles over two weeks old are now unavailable. Mitigating that are the Times excellent URL format, that makes clear the date of articles, and the nice summaries of fee-based articles. It is too difficult now, however, to always work with articles that are at most only two weeks old. Therefore, I am unlinking the Times from the front page.

The Washington Post has an inferior registration and login interface to that of the Times web site, but at least most Post articles will be available online for a month.

CNN and USA Today remain the champions, as their articles are always easily available.

I encourage everyone to see the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. (*)

As a fan of the Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O’Brian, I could not be happier or more pleased. Not only is it a great adaptation, it is a great, great movie. With luck, they will make more movies in the series, and retain the same high standards in making them.

Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany are terrific. They just become Aubrey and Maturin. Peter Weir should get the Oscars for directing and best picture.

I have a few more comments about the movie. Don’t read past this point if you haven’t seen it yet.
(more…)

Finally, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World opens. (*) If you are already familiar with the Aubrey and Maturin novels by Patrick O’Brian, you know what this is about. If you aren’t familiar, just go see the movie anyway. Then read the review. (†)

Gregg Easterbrook has revived his popular Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on a new site. (*) ESPN fired Easterbrook a few weeks ago. (†)

Since TMQ has been off the web, the Minnesota Vikings have mysteriously gone 0–3 and given up 1,360 yards of offense. (‡) This is the sort of hidden indicator that is essential to an insider’s understanding of the sport. Unfortunately, this author has no idea what it means.

Update: 25 November 2003. Now it’s at NFL.com. (§) Look like it’s permanent.

According to Roger L. Simon (*) ESPN has fired Gregg Easterbrook, a columnist who wrote “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” (TMQ) for ESPN’s web site, espn.com. Easterbrook had published a web log to the web site of the New Republic in his capacity as columnist and blogger for that magazine (†) that had been criticized by, among others, Roger L. Simon for anti-Semitic content. (‡) Easterbrook apologized and took back his remarks. (§) Simon has called ESPN’s firing of Easterbrook an overreaction. (**) Previously, Easterbrook took TMQ from Slate to ESPN’s web site, and perhaps could take TMQ somewhere else again. That is, however, not the point.

Easterbrook did step over the line. In the web log—a movie review—he charged that certain Hollywood executives were producing movies that portrayed too much violence for the sake of money, and in light of their Jewish ethnicity, considering the violence of the Holocaust, they should be especially ashamed. Obviously, that is a deeply idiotic statement and is troubling from the standpoint of anti-Semitism. As Easterbrook stated in his apology, the Jewishness of certain Hollywood executives has nothing to do with the charge that certain movies portray too much violence.

I would have liked to see a more introspective, self-questioning statement, but he did apologize. There is nothing of which I am aware that would lead me to think he has some recurring problem in this area. Now that Easterbrook has apologized, that should be the end of the controversy.

ESPN has, however, a large investment in being the “World’s Leader in Sports” and it cannot afford to be subjected to sustained criticism for racism or anti-Semitism. In light of the resignation of Rush Limbaugh (††) after Limbaugh commented on air about the race of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, ESPN may perceive that it has no margin remaining. That would be unfortunate, as Easterbrook is an excellent columnist for ESPN’s web site, and he apologized and took back for his troubling statement.

In my opinion, Limbaugh may have purposefully made his controversial remarks on ESPN so that he could leave ESPN’s employment prior to being checked into the 30–day treatment program for his painkiller addiction. (‡‡) Easterbrook shouldn’t pay for Limbaugh’s drug problem. It is not particularly relevant to Easterbrook whether Limbaugh should have been fired or not. Another, separate difference between Limbaugh and Easterbrook is that Limbaugh did not apologize, and Easterbrook did.

Is our culture really so fragile that we must never forgive anyone for this sort of mistake? If Easterbrook cannot be forgiven his off-the-cuff remarks made on a blog, it will only tend to stifle debate and discussion that must be engaged in one way or another. It is better to let these things play out in light of day, where exposure to truth will separate the truly nasty and despicable statements, like those of Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia (§§), from the ones that are honest mistakes, duly apologized for, like Easterbrook’s.

It may be safe for ESPN to fire Easterbrook, but his firing would be far more damaging to our society than the anti-Semitic content of his remarks. ESPN should not fire Easterbrook, and Easterbrook should take a long, hard look inside himself.

TMQ was part of ESPN’s “Page 2″ feature. Feedback can be directed to ESPN. (***)

Update: 30 October 2003: Charles Krauthammer opines on the subject. (†††)

Update: 13 November 2003: TMQ has a new home. (‡‡‡)

Stanley Kurtz observes that many organs of the media have failed to cover the marriage amendment proposal that would constitutionalize marriage as a union of a woman and a man. (*) The situation was the same two years ago, leading Kurtz to believe that there is a media bias in favor of gay marriage. (†)

One of the best arguments against gay marriage that I’ve heard is the one that Kurtz makes. We should not implement this major change in society if there is not vigorous public debate on the issue. The debate thus far has been sporadic and halting.

Today, Spanish officials arrested Tayseer Allouni for involvement with and support of Al Qaeda. (*) Allouni works for the Qatari-based, satellite channel Al Jazeera.

I have previously criticized Al Jazeera for its Islamofascist bias. (†)

Al Jazeera’s web site is covering the story.

Soon after the arrest an Arab rights body called for Alouni’s release.

The Arab Commission for Human Rights told Aljazeera the Spanish action was a serious attack on press freedom.

It said the arrest dishonoured Spain and the police should apologise immediately to Alouni and his family.

(‡) Funny. It’s not like the Arab Commission for Human Rights needs to get the facts first, or even consider the possibility that the charges could be true. They just know they are false. They must have some very good information, I guess.

The British Left, like the American Left, has been divided over the war in Iraq. John Lloyd has resigned his position of columnist with the antiwar New Statesman (*) over the issue. The Guardian excerpts his resignation letter, an excellent, principled statement. (†)

Apparently, John Pilger (‡) has made a statement opposing Lloyd’s, but that one is only available for a fee.

This evening, CNN broadcast a report, and an interview with CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan, about how the Saddam Hussein regime planned to carry out a terrorist attack on the CNN compound in Irbil, in northern Iraq, and made other terroristic threats against Western journalists. The regime believed that CNN was being used as a cover for American and Israeli intelligence. CNN anchor Aaron Brown stated that only now, with the regime fallen, does CNN feel that they can tell the story without jeopardizing the safety of their employees and others. Iraqi agents were working to use one ton of explosives to blow up CNN’s operations center in Irbil. Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, Iraq’s unintentionally humorous Information Minister, threatened CNN’s employees with death if they placed reporters in northern Iraq. “Baghdad Bob” had a secret dark side.
(more…)

The US military has come under criticism for the deaths of three journalists in Baghdad, including one employed by Al Jazeera. Due to Al Jazeera’s reputation for siding with the Saddam regime during the war, suspicions have been aroused that these journalists were deliberately targeted. Jack Shafer has a good exploration of the incidents in Slate. (*) At this early point, the deaths appear to have been the result of accident.

Even if the evidence clearly excuses US forces, the military should conduct some kind of investigation. It’s important to allow the world to scrutinize the facts of this controversy.