Saturday, October 08, 2011

Journalists, inanity, taste and acquaintance with the language

A story run by the Telegraph earlier today boasted the headline “Senator accused of sexism over 'thank God' remark about female opponent”.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8813978/Senator-accused-of-sexism-over-thank-God-remark-about-female-opponent.html)

So the opponent was female. That’s the only attribute about her that our journalist thinks to be relevant, in the first instance. We learn, later, that she is a professor, teaches at Harvard, 62 years old and a Democrat. But, first and foremost, she has a vagina et cetera, is what the journalist wants us to know.

What about the senator? What gender does this protagonist have? The story, later, suggests that it is of the masculine sort. The headline does not, choosing only to bring out the gender of the other protagonist. This appears to be evidence of sexist thinking, on the part of the journalist. One assumes that the name Jon Swaine and the accompanying headshot is that of a real person, one often called a journalist, given that it is a newspaper, and that this person takes responsibility for what this person writes. Of course, the story might have been written by Clara, thus freeing Mr. Swaine of all guilt, but Clara is a female, and do we really need to acknowledge their contribution?

“Scott Brown, a..Republican…helped pay for university by appearing in Cosmopolitan. Asked how she funded her own education, Prof Warren.. said she had "borrowed money", adding: "I kept my clothes on." During a radio interview, Mr Brown, 52, responded: "Thank God."”

Now the headline claims that the senator has been “accused” of sexism. What does that mean? Accused by the State, or the local public prosecutor’s office? By pitchfork-carrying mobs of enlightened thousands? In dozens of letters written to local newspapers? The article itself quotes two individuals who make this suggestion. One is an paid employee (one assumes Executive Directors is not a pro bono job) of the political opponent, who is clearly partisan. The second source is the President of the National Organization for Women, an organization of feminists. Given that there are only two sources, one manifestly interested, one wonders whether the journalist may used the term “accused” in this generic fashion. In any public house, one can find eight people who are probably happy to do the same. Would that mean the Pope is “accused” of being lenient towards child molesters? By four times as many people as in this case? Are not fairness and veracity better served with “President of NOW accuses Senator of sexism; Senator repudiates”? But she actually said it was a “sexist misogynistic attack” (She is referring to the senator having said “Thank God”). A bit of stretch there, perhaps, but it is her opinion, and that may well be reported by the journalist. And if it wasn’t a stretch, then why was the misogyny accusation not mentioned in the headline? Analysis and perspective – are those part of a journalist’s brief? That would involve some contemplation. Perhaps more on Clara’s part. It’s her fault, really.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

On eccentric chess-players and independent journalists

The Telegraph reported yesterday, 13 Jun 2011, on the visit of Mr. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to Tripoli, where he met Col. Gaddafi, the beleaguered leader of Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573080/Col-Gaddafi-refuses-to-step-down-playing-chess-instead.html).

The sub-headline referred to the visitor as being “eccentric”, as did the caption of the accompanying photograph. Indeed, the caption also suggested the reason why he is regarded as being eccentric: he has apparently claimed to have spoken to aliens. Interestingly, the photography is attributed to Reuters TV – did that source provide the writer of the Telegraph article with the caption as well, or did he happen upon “eccentric” on their own?

Now, the visitor labeled by this journalist as being eccentric is, according to the same article, the head of the World Chess Federation, a wealthy businessman and was the head of the Russian republic of Kalmykia for more than a decade.

The article does not state why the writer thinks the President of FIDE to be eccentric, but the juxtaposition in the caption appears to imply it is because he has claimed to have met aliens from space.

Now why would this make anyone eccentric? We live in a world where people believe in all sorts of invisible Gods, and whole systems of hells and heavens for which not the slightest proof exists. Indeed, some of the fundamental claims of some of the currently dominant religions are proven to be false. Yet there are those who believe in them. Would the journalist take it upon himself to call the Pope eccentric? The Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque? The millions of poor in India who generally tend to look towards a God-figure? The journalist is entitled to his opinion, but surely a little sense of taste would not be awry?

> “He (Gaddafi) is thought to spend his time constantly on the move, driving around Tripoli, and sleeping in hospitals and religious places that Nato would never dare bomb.”

By whom? By the journalist? In that case, why not “I think he spends his time…….”? Or by two Libyans who accosted him at the bar whilst they were getting some more ice for him? Why not state that source? The “is thought” device suggests common wisdom, an almost-truth, the truth.

The Independent followed suit the next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dictators-gambit-look-whos-joined-the-chess-set-2297106.html), referring to the first President of Kalmykia as “the eccentric chess supremo”.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Cause and Effect and Attention-Seeking

The BBC, on its website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13694734), ran the following tragic headline on the 08th of June, 2011, "Man stabbed to death for £12 on birthday in Fulham".

The article describes how a young man, Mr. Krzysztos Rusek, celebrating his birthday, his thirtieth in a public park in the company of his lover and friends, was attacked and killed.

It goes on to suggest that robbery was the motive and that a total of GBP 12 was taken.

The headline, on the other hand, implies that Mr. Rusek was murdered for the sake of GBP 12. Now, it is absurd that that the attackers knew in advance that they would be able to make away with this sum. Indeed, the article suggests that the attack was carried out with intent to rob (it describes the assailants as robbers and not, say, murderers) and not necessarily to kill.

The headline is thus an example of shabby journalism, in that truth is sacrificed in order to pander to sensationalism.

Monday, June 06, 2011

An example of far from outstanding journalism

The very respectable Guardian today published a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/06/libyan-regime-fails-fool-media) on the armed conflict (are we allowed to call it a War?) in Libya with the headline, "Gaddafi regime fails to fool media over injured child".

The sub-text read "Journalists taken to see 'bomb victim' in Libyan hospital find out child was hurt in road accident".

The story involves the Libyan government inviting journalists to observe an injured infant, probably in an effort to showcase how NATO bombs were killing children, hoping that the picture of an innocent girl in a hospital ward would appall most Westerners, putting pressure on NATO countries to stop bombing Libya. The narrative continues with the Libyan government being exposed whilst organizing a media circus around a lie – the girl was injured in a car crash.

Excellent investigative reporting, one might think, at first glance; the government won't fool us this time, lads.

However, a closer look and the story fails shockingly, on many levels.

Perhaps most importantly, even if the note on "hospital stationery" bore the truth, what of the larger issue of civilian casualties in a war? This girl was (probably) not struck by a bomb. What of the others who were? The article completely ignores this issue.

Perhaps Libyan babies aren't really that interesting

Note that the seven-month-old girl, Nasib, is completely ignored. We don't know where she is from, or where her parents are from, or whether her parents are really glad that she's survived, and if the entire family is praying for a swift and complete recovery. No one from the medical team is asked what her chances are. How did the road accident (if it indeed was a road accident) take place? Was there anyone else hurt? Were the parents in the same car?

As any reader of the UK press (the Guardian being a UK newspaper) might tell you, this sort of thing would be very conspicuous in its absence, were it to involve a seven-month-old accident victim in the UK.


Let's examine the headline again - it highlights a failed attempt at fooling the media. The media has triumphed. The media is all-powerful. Apart from being distastefully self-congratulatory, surely there are more urgent issues here that are pushed to the background?

Let us examine how they media found out they were being hoodwinked.

> But a member of the medical staff slipped a note written in English on hospital stationery to a reporter, which was seen by Reuters, that said: "This is a case of road traffic accident. This is the truth."

How did the media know that this person was a member of the medical staff? Did they check ID and employment records? Or was he wearing a whitish-sort of uniform? Or because he had his hand on a piece of "hospital stationery"? How strictly controlled is access to said hospital stationery? How do they know that the note is to be believed? Apart from the fact that he wrote "This is the truth", of course.

Assuming that the girl in this particular case wasn't really hurt by a bomb, but in a car accident, may we assume that NATO bombing is not to blame? What if the driver became nervous at the wheel because he heard a bomb explode in the distance and imagined that he might be hit soon? What if traffic was not properly controlled because the war situation had shifted resources away from traffic control? What if the girl will die because there aren't enough doctors to treat her, or medicines, because of the interrupted supply chains?

>” The government says that 700 civilians have died in bombing raids, but have offered little evidence to support the claim.”

Well, what evidence did they offer? Or is this a figure of speech, and absolutely no evidence was forthcoming? That's good, we want our journalists to probe, to ask for proof. What would have sufficed? 700 dead bodies? But they could have drowned whilst on a pleasure cruise to Italy or something, so 700 dead bodies with autopsy reports, perhaps? But the government might be faking those, so 700 autopsy reports from independent doctors. That ought to do the job. They have a war going on over there, and seven-month-old girls hooked up to (some sort of unidentifiable) medical equipment, so it might take a little bit of time. The key question in this context is: do standards of truth in the war-zone apply universally? Would we believe the statistics of the government of Australia? Better still, may we believe them, in a similar case? And whilst we are trying to figure out the truth, ought military action to be put on hold?

A member of the government is quoted:

> "We want to be as credible as much as possible."

Our journalist ignores this question-begging statement.

Monday, May 16, 2011

How a truth is born

The posh media today is neither independent nor particularly critical.

Background: In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India observed that so-called honour killings were a slur on the modern Indian nation. The judgement itself was worrying in that it appeared to validate extra-judicial confessions, extended the meaning of certain common words, and displayed a shocking lack of logic and ignorance of the demarcation of power between the legislature and the judiciary (More at http://promotingfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-penalty-judicial-response-to.html).


The Washington Post ran the story too, on the very next day, i.e. 10 May 2011, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-top-court-recommends-death-penalty-for-honor-killings/2011/05/10/AFRk2IeG_story.html).

The story is attributed to the Associated Press; authorship is anonymous.

But surely, a watchful editor at the Washington Post would have been concerned with this statement:

> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people were killed each year in India for defying their elders."



A study by whom? Surely, we don't accept the quoting of statistics without provenance?

Does the figure include teenagers who drive their parents' car in spite of being told not to ("wait till you're 18 and have a license" and all that sort of thing), and get killed in an automobile accident? The language employed, "killed for defying their elders", does not exclude this and other similar cases.


The Telegraph, whilst referring to a separate "honour" killing incident (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8515426/India-mothers-accused-in-honour-killing-of-two-brides.html), five days later wrote:


> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people are killed each year in India for defying their elders."



This is exactly the same sentence published by the Washington Post. There is no attribution to the Associated Press. Nor is here the provenance of the study disclosed.

And so a dubious (in that it is too general, and unattributed) claim becomes reinforced, and acquires the attribute of being independently verified.

It would be hard to fault a post-graduate student in France from using this statement in an academic work, given that there are two easily-accessible, apparently independent sources - one in the UK, one in the USA. The academic paper would be cited by an official responsible for policy, or by a politician back in India responsible for legislation.

And so yet another truth of our modern information age is created.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

The Indian Press and a Lack of Style

This recent article in the Hindustan Times on Elections in India (http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-can-boast-of-four-women-CMs/Article1-696946.aspx) illustrates the poor sense of style displayed by the Indian media.


> With Mamata Banerjee and J Jayalalithaa set to capture power in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu respectively, India could for the first time boast of four women Chief Ministers.


Why "Mamta" Banerjee but "J" Jayalalithaa? Why is one of these ladies stuck with an unexpanded initial? What possible excuse could they have?

Prefer "..boast of as many as four.." to "..boast of four..", for one assumes that the number 4 in itself is not the source of the boast, but is meant to evoke a sense of great numbers.

> BSP supremo Mayawati has singlehandedly secured power in the largest state of Uttar Pradesh four years back and her victory at that time was seen as a defining moment in Indian politics.


Prefer "Mayawati had singlehandedly secured" to "Mayawati has singlehandedly secured", given that a past event is being referred to.

> Jayalalithaa was out in the cold for the last five years in Tamil Nadu as also at the Centre, had her sweet revenge on Karunanidhi's DMK despite setbacks in the last two Lok Sabha polls and would be ruling the state for the next five years.


A clumsy sentence, on account of omitted commas.

The very next sentence is:

> Jayalalithaa's single point campaign plank was to end the "family rule" of the DMK in the backdrop of the 2G spectrum allocation scam.


Curious that "her" is not employed, instead of the proper name, given that the preceding sentence started too with "Jayalalithaa", and no other female person was named in either sentence.

> ..Shashikala Kakodkar of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party was Chief Minister of the then Union territory of Goa for most part of the seventies.


Prefer "most of the seventies" to "most part of the seventies".

> Congress' Anwara Taimur was in the top executive post of Assam for a year in early eighties


"An year", of course, and not "a year".

Prefer "in the early eighties" to "in early eighties".

The writer, in the same article employs "in the early sixties" and "in early seventies". He, or she, therefore, is neither consistent not correct.

> Since those elections in 1998, Dikshit is holding forte in Delhi.


Probably "fort" instead of "forte". Presumably, holding fort is her forte.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The shirking of intellectual duty

A recent book review in Foreign Policy (http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/11/pakistan_a_hard_country) does not appear to have been written by someone who is both non-partisan and academically sound.

The reviewer praises the book, calling it "comprehensive":

> This insightful, comprehensive portrait of Pakistan is the perfect antidote to stereotypical descriptions of the country

However, the reviewer admits, later, to the book having missed some key areas:

> There is surprisingly little on the U.S. drone program in Pakistan's tribal areas, one of the most controversial subjects in the context of strained U.S.-Pakistan relations...Lieven's discussion of the Pakistani economy is also limited...

The reviewer than labels these and other omissions as being of a "minor" nature. The drone strikes, "one of the most controversial subjects", by the reviewer's own account, and the national economy are labeled minor, in no very deft fashion.

The reviewer wishes to end on a positive note:

> ....an intuitive, intelligent, and invaluable text.

Is this the reviewer's (unconscious, perhaps) love of alliteration, or does the text satisfy on all three fronts?

What does "intuitive" mean?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive".

So, the reviewer knew really what the writer was leading up to, even before having read the text? The writer came up with conclusions and presented premises that the reviewer was previously comfortable with? Is this the reason for the positive review? Intelligent and invaluable because you reinforce my world-view.

The OED also suggests that a secondary meaning exists, but chiefly in the context of computer software, "easy to use and understand". Was the book accompanied by a list of key pages that reviewers ought to read? Were sections relevant to reviewers highlighted?

Or did the writers intentionally use easy language, making the book accessible also to non-native speakers of English?

> It is to Lieven's credit that he allows Pakistanis to express their own understanding of the nation's predicament through extensive direct quotes. This narrative device helps uncover the logic behind traits that may seem indecipherable - or even suicidal - to the outsider; the barbaric rulings of western-educated tribal chiefs, the apathy of civilian law-enforcers in the face of militant attacks, or the average Pakistani's appetite for conspiracy theories about the U.S. and India.

Direct quotes are fun. They make an account appear authentic. The reviewer suggests that direct quotes help uncover the logic behind indecipherable/suicidal traits. Is the reviewer attempting to ascribe a "logic" to these very unpleasant traits? To justify them?

> The subtlety and fluency with which Lieven deconstructs the quirks of Pakistani society may lead some to write him off as an apologist for the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can nothing be further from the truth? The reviewer does not inform us. (The next sentence about the book containing dire warnings about Pakistan's future is not a particularly novel idea) Indeed, it would appear that the reviewer has recognized that the author might be seen as an apologist for Pakistan, especially after having "known" the country for more than twenty years (as the reviewer informs us), does not wish this to happen, and attempts to nip such thinking in the bud.

> His resounding message to the Washington is to avoid incursions into Pakistani territory by U.S. ground forces, even in the event of a terrorist attack with Pakistani origins on American soil.

Superfluous definite article in "the Washington".

And why is this a "resounding" message? It would appear that the reviewer is trying too hard.

So what's the recommendation? That the US, with the world's largest military, and a history of wars in foreign countries, should not exercise any military option at all, after having been attacked? Does not appear to be awfully realistic. Or that the US should employ drones, the USAF and navy to attack terrorist installations in Pakistan?