The New York Times‘s “Orwellian Chestnut”

It all started on a dark and stormy night…well, not really - but it did start on CBS’s 60 minutes. In a hit piece narrated by the opinionated journalist Leslie Stahl, several pieces of information regarding CNN newscaster Lou Dobbs were conveyed to the viewing audience, one of which has gained a modicum of public attention. The first related how Stahl was shocked to learn that Lou Dobbs, who professed to be a journalist, often gave his opinion on certain issues - in apparent contradiction to the accepted definition of the term journalist - even though, as the conservative Media Research Center has noted, Ms. Stahl, herself, has had a history of offering her own opinion on various political issues*; I’m guessing that this was some kind of smear tactic employed with the intention of discrediting the guy’s journalistic credentials. The latter, the one which is now being used by the media to bash Dobbs, was the mentioning of an error in a story broadcast on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight almost two years ago. In short, Dobbs screwed up the numbers in a leprosy story. When assaulted by Stahl over the subject, he became defensive and asserted that it must be true if he reported it; funny how reporters never tell people before hand that they are going to be presented with an obscure event occurring years ago in their past - if they did, perhaps they might have time to prepare a defense. Outraged, New York Times writer David Leonhardt wrote a scathing article, entitled Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs, condemning the broadcaster; he even used the phrase “Orwellian Chestnut” to describe Dobb’s reply to the Stahl assertion.

Strange that the NY Times would mention George Orwell, considering that they themselves seem hell bent on making his fiction into our reality, one in which an all-powerful elite controls all media, disseminating ideologically correct information to a naïve public while demonizing those who speak contrary to accepted norms.

Consider this little “Orwellian Chestnut” from David Leonhardt’s Fahrenheitian*article

The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a “60 Minutes” producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs’s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.

When Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn’t seem to be much evidence for it. “Well, I can tell you this,” he replied. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

“With that Orwellian chestnut, Mr. Dobbs escalated the leprosy dispute into full-scale media brouhaha.”

So let me get this straight, Dobbs screws up some numbers on an obscure story, dug up from nearly 2 years ago, and that is somehow worse than the mistakes made by the NY times? Oh, you know:

1) Their Iraq war coverage, so bad that the editors of the paper were eventually forced to offer a semi-apology to the country: On May 26, 2004, the Times published a piece entitled "From the Editors" indicating that the paper's reporting of the lead up to the war in Iraq, "especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists...was not as rigorous as it should have been." http://www10.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

2) Their story on infant mortality rates increasing in the South Innumeracy, thy name is New York Times reporter, The Economist

“A dire article from the New York Times indicates that infant mortality is rising in the American south, particularly among blacks: ‘Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average. Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.) The overall jump in Mississippi meant that 65 more babies died in 2005 than in the previous year, for a total of 481.’

65 more dead babies is 65 too many. But it's a small enough number that one needs to consider things like measurement error--did Mississippi change its criteria for infant mortality?--and random variation before leaping to the conclusion, as the article does, that this is some fundamental sea change in operation. Certainly, generalising the problem to "the south" on the basis of smaller increases in six other states, which are even more likely to be random variation, seems extreme.

I presume, because they are not mentioned, that Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Kentucky, and Arkansas did not see increases in infant mortality. If so, fifty percent of the region's infant mortality rates are either staying the same or getting better, while fifty percent are getting worse, with most of the change probably falling within the limits of random variation. Not exactly a compelling new finding.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/innumeracy_thy_name_is_new_yor.cfm

To recap, fake reporters, thousands dead in Iraq, and alarmist - pathetically analyzed - stories are apparently not as bas as screwing up some leprosy statistics.

“The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.”

Did you know that Lou Dobbs also invented small pox and single handedly killed all the Indians living in America, too? Woo, {jiggle fingers in front of frightened masses} “and anyone who speaks up is a racist!”

Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased…

1. feigned high principles: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings

Let’s be honest about this situation. Lou Dobbs has been broadcasting on CNN for years now and has logged hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of reporting; there are bound to be errors in at least a small number of his reports, but none of those errors can compare to the mistakes made by the New York Times in recent years; this latest salvo is just another grenade lobbed by the Pravda wing of the American media. If someone strays from the official policy of the establishment, dig up dirt on them and smear their reputation, call them names and try to shame them into silence or, if you’re too polite to do it yourself, have David Brock’s Media Matters do it for you (yes, Brock is a scumbag who slimed Anita Hill in the most vile and racist way imaginable - but he wrote a book and founded a website, all better now, right?*). If that fails, take out advertisements against them, like the Southern Poverty Law Center* did in the Times (surprised?). Or just lie, “He wrote that I said, quote, that "One third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants." That isn't what I said. I didn't say anything close to it.

We reported that one-third of the federal prison population three and a half years ago were non-citizens. The columnist said the number was 6 percent. The exact number of the year in question was 29.3 percent for fiscal year 2001. And by the way, we're putting up links on our Web site, loudobbs.com, so you can check the numbers for yourself.”

Contrary to what David Leonhardt might think, I think it is he, and not Lou Dobbs, who has offered an “Orwellian Chestnut” - one which exposes, to a small degree, the willingness of a few manner-less, disreputable individuals in the media to besmirch those with whom they disagree, and the lengths that certain rags will go to in order to let them do it.

Towards the end of Mr. Leonhardt’s article, he grudgingly admits that illegal immigration is a problem. Apparently, in this guy’s universe, it’s okay to admit the obvious, just not so much as to provoke the masses to demand action to solve it or, heavens forbid, in a way that offends the delicate sensibilities of the staff and writers of the prestigious New York Times.

"A few agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous..." George Orwell’s 1984

_____________________________________________________________________________________

“CBS's Lesley Stahl, in a 60 Minutes profile of CNN's Lou Dobbs aired Sunday night, expressed indignation over how Dobbs violates the supposed "fair and balanced" rule of journalism by revealing his disdain for President Bush, but Stahl has a long history of announcing her personal political views, including scorn for President Reagan and adulation of Hillary Clinton.”

* Hey, if the Times can make up stories about Iraq and hire fake reporters, then I think I’m entitled to make up a word every now and then.

* …“in The American Spectator magazine, in which he said Hill might be "a bit nutty and a bit slutty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

*And in reply to the advertisement taken out in the Times by the Southern Poverty Law Center (quite a deceptive name, huh):

This digging up dirt thing, sad really - but not that hard to do. Here’s Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law center telling a student “F*** you,” just for asking a question:

Morris Dees at SLU won't answer questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB5b1QalWek

Original article: http://www10.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonhardt.html?_r=5&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

“Under the spreading chestnut tree
“I sold you and you sold me....”

2 posted on 06/02/2007 8:05:22 AM PDT by RichInOC (Stupidity is its own punishment...but too much of the press thinks they're exempt.)

Brock is a scumbag who slimed Anita Hill in the most vile and racist way imaginable

An opinion, not a fact. Yeah, Brock is a scumbag, but the substance of most of his criticism of Anita Hill has never really been refuted. Just fulminated against, as in this case, as vile and racist.

3 posted on 06/02/2007 8:14:39 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)

What is “CBS”?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.