h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Zagreb, hope you don't mind my going to your PS, it was a bit OT for the Darfur thread.

'If you thought I was characterising "all the left" then you are very much mistaken.'

No, and I took pains to make it clear that I thought it was just a *tendency* on your part.

'Certainly in the UK (and elsewhere) a minority (and notably growing one) of consistent leftwingers supported regime-change in Iraq from the start (and had done so since Gulf War I).'

OK, I will revise what I said. You seem, to me, to have a tendency to characterise the anti-war left as anti-American, which I think isn't defensible.

'George Orwell wrote an excellent piece attacking such writing, castigating "comfortable professors" who used political language and intellectual rationalism to (for example) justify Stalin's purges and mass-murders.'

Orwell was quite right, this sort of thing does happen, but this is a very different sort of thing to what medialens is doing. Those who justified Stalin (or whatever) would have been using very abstract concepts, in fact probably meaningless concepts (like the now mostly ignored Hegelian dialectic), in place of concrete arguments. Medialens on the other hand does no such thing. By concentrating specifically on journalistic standards they provide extremely concrete arguments.

Yes, it's true if you select your data carefully enough you can reach any conclusion you like. Some people I knew were convinced Kerry would win because they only paid attention to the polls that said he would, and ignored the others as biased. But this isn't relevant to the criticisms that medialens makes in itself, only to the final conclusions you reach. If medialens were to point out that such and such a journalist reported such and such a statistic as fact when it was actually fictitious, or if they criticise the methodology of some poll or statistical survey, they are not forcing a conclusion on you, only pointing out holes in someone else's argument.

Part of the raison d'etre of medialens is that there is a lot of very sloppy journalism and no real redress. Occasionally a newspaper will print a letter of maybe one paragraph disagreeing with one of their articles, or maybe one tiny point in it, but that's about as good as it gets. Individual complaints to the editor or author are typically ignored. However, an organised campaign like medialens can make a significant difference, and may help to enforce better journalistic standards. True, they are not doing this in an unbiased way, but they, and I, would see it as a counterweight to a generally conservative (small c) media that is in many ways subservient to authority. (This is particularly true of the BBC after Hutton incidentally.) This is the meaning of Medialens' catchphrase "correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media". Perhaps I should just point out their own description of what they're about:

http://www.medialens.org/homepage_more.html

FWIW, medialens is scrupulous about prominently publishing editors' and authors' responses to their media alerts.

"Part of the raison d'etre of medialens is that there is a lot of very sloppy journalism and no real redress."

By "sloppy", I would assume they mean "we disagree with it". Biased writing is *always* "sloppy" to some degree, since even the most open-minded writer will tend to emphasise the stuff they agree with and play-down the stuff they don't

"Occasionally a newspaper will print a letter of maybe one paragraph disagreeing with one of their articles, or maybe one tiny point in it, but that's about as good as it gets. Individual complaints to the editor or author are typically ignored."

What do you mean by this?

"However, an organised campaign like medialens can make a significant difference, and may help to enforce better journalistic standards. True, they are not doing this in an unbiased way..."

You pretty much admit here that they are biased and have an agenda, therefore the idea that they are trying to "enforce better journalistic standards" is clearly a front for trying to make pushing a political agenda sound more neutral and intellectual.

"...but they, and I, would see it as a counterweight to a generally conservative (small c) media that is in many ways subservient to authority."

The classic far-left myth is that the media is generally "conservative", in the same way the far-right are endlessly accusing it of being "liberal". It's a general complaint which means "it publishes viewpoints different from ours, therefore it has an agenda/is subservient."

"(This is particularly true of the BBC after Hutton incidentally.)"

Nonsense, the BBC continues to cover such issues as the war in Iraq etc in a fair and balanced way which is both it's remit and it's duty. It got it's fingers burn over Hutton because it had *exceeded* it's remit and believed it's duty was to pursue and attack the government's position, which was the decision of a handful of BBC personelle (including Greg Dyke). It was correct for the BBC to broadcast sceptical positions, it was *not* it's duty to pursue an agenda (which it was plainly trying to do).


"This is the meaning of Medialens' catchphrase "correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media".

Or "here's a biased viewpoint which goes against what you read in the mainstream press". You admit that Medialens are biased, so the idea that they are merely another version of the non-partisan US site "Antispin" is plainly nonsense. The fact that they are not owned by a private or state enterprise does not make them fountains of truth. In fact, the "independent" publications can often be the most distorting and untruthful (see Socialist Worker, or BNP pamphlets).

No, I don't mean 'sloppy' in the sense of 'we disagree with it'. Yes, it's impossible to achieve absolutely objective journalism, but this doesn't mean that one shouldn't strive to achieve something better than pure opinion. What I meant by there being no real redress is that newspapers (and TV news) will not publicise their mistakes or objections to their articles very widely, if at all.

I've never denied that medialens is biased and have their own agenda, nor have I said that they're neutral. I have made the distinction between arguing that such and such is the case, and arguing that such and such a journalist's arguments are weak. Of course in either case, all arguments (whether they're from biased individuals or not) have to be considered on their own merits. The difference between the two types of argument is that an argument of the former type invites you to agree with the conclusions of the author, an argument of the latter type invites you not to disagree with the conclusions of the original author, but to disagree with their line of argument. If you accept the logic of the former type of argument you end up agreeing with the conclusion of the author, whereas if you accept the logic of the latter type of argument you are not compelled to either accept or reject the conclusion of the original article.

"The classic far-left myth is that the media is generally "conservative", in the same way the far-right are endlessly accusing it of being "liberal". It's a general complaint which means "it publishes viewpoints different from ours, therefore it has an agenda/is subservient.""

Liberal and 'small c' conservative are not mutually exclusive, both statements could be right (at least, the terms are not mutually exclusive if we're talking about the British usage of these terms, I don't really understand what Americans mean when they say 'liberal').

It doesn't mean that the media publishes different viewpoints to 'ours', that's your interpretation of the psychology of 'us' (and is an unnecessarily insulting one at that). Take a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,991214,00.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/11_november/06/embeds.shtml.

One highlight: 'nine out of 10 references [on the BBC] to weapons of mass destruction during the war assumed that Iraq possessed them, and only one in 10 questioned this assumption'. Given that there was no reliable evidence to suggest they did have them, and all of the people likely to know said they didn't (weapons inspectors, etc.), the only way you could have a situation like this arise is if the BBC were subservient to authority (the government, claiming they did have them).

Incidentally, it's my opinion that the BBC didn't exceed its remit. What they said was right in substance, they were condemned over a technicality about attribution of sources if my memory is correct.

I assume that 'antispin' purports to be equally critical of all journalism, I've never come across it. I wasn't saying that medialens was like that, in fact I went out of my way to say that it wasn't, and they go out of their way to say so on their own webpage. Nor did I say that they were 'fountains of truth' because they're independent. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was saying either of these things. The first I made a particular effort not to say, the second is seemingly unconnected with anything I said (I never even mentioned that they were independent).

"One highlight: 'nine out of 10 references [on the BBC] to weapons of mass destruction during the war assumed that Iraq possessed them, and only one in 10 questioned this assumption'. Given that there was no reliable evidence to suggest they did have them, and all of the people likely to know said they didn't (weapons inspectors, etc.), the only way you could have a situation like this arise is if the BBC were subservient to authority (the government, claiming they did have them)."

Did those 9 out of 10 mentions actually claim Iraq *had* WMDs or were they merely passing mentions or quotes from coalition sources?

Certainly, in my opinion as a liberal who supported the war, the BBC's news reporting of the war showed no serious bias. I certainly don't recall the BBC claiming that Iraq definitely had Weapons of Mass Destruction. They certainly broadcast the coalition's claims and reasons for believing they did and the counter-claims of the sceptics. I don't recall the corporation appearing to support either side.

"Incidentally, it's my opinion that the BBC didn't exceed its remit. What they said was right in substance, they were condemned over a technicality about attribution of sources if my memory is correct."

From what I can gather, they mentioned the facts of the case then relentlessly pursued the government over the "45 minutes" claim and it's validity. It is not the BBC's job to do this as it is supposed to be an impartial and trustworthy news service, not one that takes sides. It, in my opinion, exceeded it's remit and blatantly took a side and pursued an anti-government objective. As someone who supports the BBC and genuinely think's it's the best broadcaster in the world, I have had to listen endless accusations of bias in the BBC (mostly from the Right but increasing amounts from the Left) and so I welcome any action taken against the BBC when genuine bias surfaces as, apart from anything else, I have no desire to see the anti-BBC brigade proved correct.

"Did those 9 out of 10 mentions actually claim Iraq *had* WMDs or were they merely passing mentions or quotes from coalition sources?"

Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the report, only the BBC's press release which I gave the link to, which says:

"Research by the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies released today (Thursday 6 November), found that nine out of 10 references to weapons of mass destruction during the war assumed that Iraq possessed them, and only one in 10 questioned this assumption."

I imagine that they are counting references which don't make any sense without the assumption that Iraq had the WMD, such as 'When Iraq's WMD are found...' as opposed to 'If and when Iraq's WMD are found...'. I certainly remember reports on the BBC which felt like they were saying explicitly 'they haven't found the WMD yet' but strongly suggested 'but it's only a matter of time'.

"I don't recall the corporation appearing to support either side."

Well, the BBC is made up of lots of journalists with differing views. There certainly wasn't an editorial policy that reports had to favour one side or the other, and yet for whatever reason the systematic bias is there. There were probably many contributing factors to this bias; poor critical skills amongst BBC journalists (endemic on News 24, much better on something like Newsnight), external pressure (we know that Campbell bullied lots of people for a start), over-reliance on easy sources of information (coalition spokespeople for example), etc.

"From what I can gather, they mentioned the facts of the case then relentlessly pursued the government over the "45 minutes" claim and it's validity."

Well, this might be considered a bad thing if the 45 minutes thing were not so crucial. The BBC said the government lied, whereas in actual fact they misled. I think that the BBC have a perfect right to kick up as much of a fuss as they possibly can if there is even a possibility that the country was led into war on the basis of false or misleading claims. The point of having news is not just to be informed of what your masters have decided for you, but to empower the electorate of a democratic country. To raise questions strongly when something so significant is at stake is not to take sides, it's the minimum commitment that an impartial media should make.

Strange as it may seem, I also support the BBC and think they're better than all the others. I think they have less overt bias than most of the other broadcasters, but they're too weedy. The fact that political discussion was banned on h2g2 during the war is a case in point. (Following up an earlier point, I wrote to the BBC to complain about this. I didn't even get my letter acknowledged, let alone replied to or acted upon. I heard nothing from them. You can even read my letter, I posted it on h2g2 at the time at A1001791.)