Asymmetrical Information

Heh.

They lie so openly about things that are so easy to check that it's hard to believe them on anything.

Look at this:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115261/

How do Kaplan and Drum square their opinion with all the good news stories that were NOT making it out of Iraq until quite recently? (How many members of the military have expressed outrage at how what is being reported by the media differs vastly from their experience? The consensus of the military seems to be that things are going far, far better than the media stories would indicate.) Did all the truth tellers in the media quit and leave just the suck ups for the Administration, or has something else happened?

I think something else happened: The vote on January 30. The difference between what the media thought would happen on that day and what did happen was so great that some of them noticed that things weren't nearly as bad as they had thought they were. It was a bucket of cold water in the face. With eyes open (partly at least), some in the media have actually wondered whether Bush's world view might, maybe, possibly, have been, in some weird way, more accurate than their own. Sure, it must have been dumb luck, but somehow he'd said there would be a successful election and they'd said there would not. He apparently was right. They were less right. After this eye opener, they've been less willing to say Bush is just, per se, wrong. It may be new found humility on their part or just uneasiness brought on by a fear that the guy might be lucky again, but the reporting has changed after the election.

I think this is a far better explanation of the change in reporting than what Kaplan and Drum have come up with. Do they think that Rove has just been doing a better job of adjusting his mind control ray?

Megan,

You're making a basic mistake here, in that you assume that everyone in "the administration" is reading from the same playbook. They're not. There is no single message. And civilians are prone to get it wrong frequently, whereas the military is often accused of being obstructionist when all they want to do is get their facts right before speaking. So mistakes are made by the people talking to the media? Who knew? As if the media always (or even frequently) gets it right, even AFTER talking with someone who knows what they are talking about.

But it is axiomatic that corporate or administative or military flacks try to portray a positive view on things. That's how they're taught; but they are not taught to "spin" or lie. Positive things can be said about any event, and that's what a good flack is taught to bring out. For instance, what's good about a plane crashing? (1) Helping the survivors, (2) reaching out to the families of the dead and/or injured, and (3) finding out what happened so it won't happen again. No lies; no spin. Only the truth, and in a positive fashion.

As someone who observed the disconnect between what the media was reporting and what the troops in Iraq were reporting, I have no doubt that the present media coverage of "good" things is evidence of a very powerful change occuring in Iraq.

GT:
You make in interesting point - "they lie." Too true. They are all lying, both sides:

Race and Hispanic origin are reported separately on the death certificate. Therefore, data shown by race include persons of Hispanic or non-Hispanic origin, and data for Hispanic origin include persons of any race. In this report, unless otherwise specified, deaths of Hispanic origin are included in the totals for each race group—white, black, American Indian, and Asian or Pacific Islander (API)—according to the decedent’s race as reported on the death certificate. Data shown for Hispanic persons include all persons of Hispanic origin of any race. Mortality data on the Hispanic-origin population are based on deaths in all States. Death rates for Hispanic, American Indian, and API persons should be interpreted with caution because of inconsistencies in reporting race on the death certificate as compared with race on censuses, surveys, and birth certificates. Studies have shown under-reporting on death certificates of American Indians, API, and Hispanic decedents; and undercounts of these groups in the censuses (20,21,22).

With known undercounts on both the census and the death certificates, you can't accuratly determine a death rate either way...

(TTL deaths in candidate population)

------------------------------------ = Rate

(candidate population)

The media has tired of writing negative stories about Iraq, the relatively smooth election and events in Lebanon and Egypt have at least temporarily made Iraq a positive for Bush as far as the media goes. Even much of the liberal press is now looking at Iraq as the right thing for the wrong reasons type of deal. I think Iraq got the raw deal in this war, but Im starting to think it has impacted Al Quaedas operational ability. They haven't bombed anything in a few months, and it also seems the insurgents are suffering more casualities and having less successful operations in Iraq. The optimist in me thinks that most of the republican guard that melted into the population have now been killed or broken, and the new terrorists joining Al Quaeda are suitable only to be strapped to a bomb. But the pessimest in me thinks Im not getting the full story. My biggest doubts about the news out of Iraq isn't due to lies about stats, I expect those. But the staging of the Lynch mess, and the complete disinformation reguarding Tillmans death were intricate, media savvy lies, so all the stories about happy Iraqis seem like more K Hughs fiction, designed to suck you emotionally into the war.

Politics change quickly. A month ago I would have never expected Iraq to be a strength, and the religious right to be a Bush weakness.

GT--

Glad to see that Slate's at least backed off its own lies about blacks.

As Professor Volokh discusses, it is, as usual, much more complicated that Slate makes it out to be, and is usually referred to as "the Hispanic Paradox." Among other things: "[i]t is a feature only of foreign-born Other Hispanics and foreign-born Mexicans — not of Puerto Ricans or Cubans, whether born in the United States or abroad."

And of course it's exaggerated by the fact that foreign-born people who move here are more likely to be healthy, and many move back to their home country when they become very ill.

You should read that post, as well as the Census documentation on it. There's lots of reasons to suspect the methodology and the numbers.

Note that Drum is only willing to say they didn't tell the whole truth, not that they were just Makin' Shit Up.

Though I do notice that neither Drum (who damned well ought to know better) nor Kaplan (who I don't know about) think there's any source of information other than the mainstream press or the US and Iraqi governments.

You'd think Drum, at least, would have remembered all those bloggers, Iraqi, American, and other, who're giving eyewitness reports from Iraq without either form of mediation.

They told me you were out ther, now I know.

The question isn't solely whether the Admin lies more proficiently; it's also whether its supporters are more willing to give it every benefit of the doubt, as at the start of the invasion. I think that's the mechanism as work. People look at the very good recent results, feel relief that their fairly obvious mis-analysis of American interests might yield some good rather than serious tragedy, and willing to give up much of their hard won skepticism.

"New details from an intense battle between insurgents and Iraqi police commandos supported by U.S. forces cast doubt Thursday on Iraqi government claims that 85 insurgents had been killed at what was described as a clandestine training camp."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/25/MNGMPBUNP41.DTL

“Simply put, U.S. officials in Baghdad have in the past tended not to tell the whole truth. It is of course in their interest to convey good news.”

This is utterly false. Our US officials have gone out of their way to be as accurate as possible. No, the real problem is that the MSM continually accuse the administration of lying---and eventually people began to believe the propaganda of the liberal media. Please note their disgraceful behavior regarding the Valerie Plame kerfluffle. These same sleaze balls now claim in court documents that a crime was probably never committed!

It's a known theorem that I'm surprised you don't remember from business school that the size of lies is almost always increasing over time, because bad things tend to get worse, so a sequence of bigger and bigger lies is needed to present an improving trend. It's the message of the Nick Leeson case, and indeed of pretty much every case about management accounts and audit.

Comments are Closed.