The Command Post - Op-Ed - Reporting the War

April 04, 2003

Reporting the War

Arthur Silber complains today about confirmation bias:

Since the war began two weeks ago, I have noticed the following (it began well before then, but has become much more noticeable recently): almost every strongly prowar blog that I read references many stories which support the rosiest scenarios about how this war will play out, and what will happen in a post-war Iraq (and beyond). Similarly, most antiwar blogs I read link to many stories raising questions about the positive scenarios, stories which may show serious troubles arising, both now and in the future.

This is pretty obviously true, but in a way I think it might be exactly backward. The main thing I've noticed has been the insistence of everyone that all the other guys are biased. Conservatives insist, for example, that the BBC is little more than a communist propaganda tool, while liberals kvetch about the cheerleading on CNN.

But Arthur's right: as I mentioned in my post about Robert Fisk a few days ago, you shouldn't ignore news just because you don't like it. It might be true anyway. And if you want to know how the war is going, check out Fox, CNN, and the BBC — and The Command Post of course! — and then split the difference. You'll probably get pretty close.

Posted By Calpundit at April 4, 2003 06:49 PM | TrackBack

Comments

The definition of "objective" is "I agree with the author."

That's why Eric Alterman can say the media has a conservative bias, as even the pacifica network does, from his point of view.

Posted by: Leo at April 4, 2003 08:21 PM

The point is, we don't know what the future of Iraq will be like. We can only guess. I do think we should avoid being hysterical, crying that the sky is falling, because that solves nothing.

Posted by: Jeremy at April 4, 2003 10:04 PM

I watch the BBC, Fox, CNN and CNBC to make sure I get a well rounded view. As well as reading Reuters, the Sun, the Daily Telegraph and the Corner. You really need as broad a viewing as possible to see all there is out there. Some of it may be biased like the CBBC coverage, but its worth seeing.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge at April 4, 2003 10:35 PM

This guy just now noticed "confirmation bias"? Hello? It's only what all human cultures do all the time.

Posted by: DSmith at April 4, 2003 11:52 PM

The United States is the world's largest terrorist state, and I've got the books by Noam Chomsky to prove it.

Posted by: mike at April 5, 2003 02:55 AM

it is so much easier to select the news that fits our world view and so much harder to THINK about the news that doesn't. establishing the truth after the smoke has cleared is even harder ... there is such a deluge of news now that very few stories are followed up as the next real time event grabs our attention.

ps IF WMD are not found in Iraq how will it change your view?

Posted by: aYk at April 5, 2003 04:30 AM

All this "read everybody and sort it out" is very nice, but I don't have teh time. I have to go to a few trusted sources for information because I have a job and a family. Based on their reporting so far, the news sources who have been relentlessly negative about this war have been demonstrably inaccurate and unreliable, and the thing is, you could tell at the time that they were spinning negative if you had any sense of military history at all. If you split the difference between Fox and the Beeb, your understanding of the war would be considerably less than if you watched Fox alone. Fox has been relentlessly positive about the war, and the war has gone extremely well by any rational measure - in my book, that makes them accurate.

Posted by: T. Hartin at April 5, 2003 07:07 AM

21st century axiom: everything speeds up.

A quicker war combined with realtime media coverage has made it easier to decide who to trust for news.

The agenda journalists are only beginning to realize that the truth is coming out faster than it can be spun.

Posted by: Clyde at April 5, 2003 11:35 AM