Why I hate them

By Tino

Mark Yost, writer for St. Paul Pioneer Press recently critized media coverage of Iraq as slanted and overly negative. He was viciously attacked by his peers. One Co-worker wrote an angry piece ending with “I am embarrassed to call you my colleague.”. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, accused him of having "tur[ed] on his Knight Ridder colleagues" And Clark Hoyt, the Washington Editor of the same paper wrote:

“Yost asks why you don't read about progress being made in the power grid... Maybe it's because there is no progress. Iraqis currently have electricity for an average of nine hours a day. A year ago, they averaged 10 hours of electricity.”

Well, today while aimlessly googling I discovered poor Mark Yost was in fact right about the progress on electricity. Accourding the Brookings Institutes Iraq Index the hours of electricity this month are estimated at 13.3 hours, well above the 10 hours last year. The Average of mega watt hours (MWH) was 111,400, the highest number recorded and 17% above prewar figures.

There is more in this, having to do economic illitracy of people like Clark Hoyt. In Iraq electricity is heavily subsidized. The reason they have blackouts is not only insufficient production, but that prices aren't allowed to adjust demand. While the supply of electricity has increased from 80.000 MWH in the beginning of 2004 to 110.000 today, demand has exploded from slightly over 100.000 MWH to 160.000 MWH. To me an increase in demand of this magnitude is a sign of progress, not stagnation or decline as presented by much of the media.

Hoyt also writes that “The unemployment rate is between 30 percent and 40 percent”. Oddly, he neglects to mention that the unemployment level was some 50-60% in late 2003, and has declined steadily since. While it is true that oil exports have not yet reached their pre-war peak, even here there has been solid progress, with exports at 1.7 million barrels per day in July (Brookings states the pre-war level at 1.7-2.5). He also uses the raise in Hepatitis B as a general indicator of the situation in Iraq, without mentioning that most of the increase was from 2002-2003, before the war (rational expectation among the virus?)

Clark Hoyts is a defeatist, and has therefore been hailed by his colleges as someone who 'actually know[s] what's going on in Iraq', unlike Mark Yost who sees progress. The title of Hoyts article is “Sadly, there is little good news to report from Iraq" Uh huh. Let me state a few figures from the Brookings report, a click away for anyone who is truly curious about the situation in Iraq.

Much has been written about failure to disburse the 20 billion dollars in American aid to Iraq. Well, I am happy to report that 9.5 billion $ have now been disbursed, compared to only 3.9 billion $ in January 2005. Perhaps this deserves a mention in page 14 after the pet-adoption adds? Meanwhile, the number Iraqi police have increased by 59% from January 2005, while total Iraqi security forces have increased by 37% (125.000 to 172.000).

Car traffic is up by +400% compared to prewar levels. The number of free TV-stations have tripled since January 2005, from 10 to 29. Independent newspapers and magazines have gone from 100 in January to 170 in July, and commercial radio stations from 51 in January to 80 in May. Of course, before the war the number was 0, 0, 0 (but as we know during Saddam everyone who wanted a job was given one, and there was no such thing as torture in Abu Ghraib).

Iraq had 0.8 million Telephone subscribers before the war, 2.4 million by January 2005 and 3.8 million today. A modest increase of +356%, I am sure not newsworthy according to the high standards of Knight Rider Newspaper. Meanwhile, the number of Internet subscribers (not including use of internet cafes) has exploded from prewar 4.500 to 147.000 by March of 2005.

This year Iraqs economy is growing faster than Chinas, with expected 10-12% GDP growth in 2005. Economic growth is not an abstraction, but the sum of individual progress. The impressive growth mean that proves you have progress “on the ground” (as illustrated above). Instead of reporting on this and the journalists attacking Mark Yost make it sound like people cannot walk outside their home without being blown to pieces.

Mr Hoyt, The Washington editor of a large newspaper, has a compleatly bizarre explanation for the skewed reporting. You see, Mark Yost got his information from the US military, who were too afraid to go outside and see the reality in Iraq. Unlike the brave journalists that is (not a joke)

“The "unfiltered news" Yost gets from his military friends is in fact filtered by their isolation in the Green Zone and on American military bases from the Iraqi population, an isolation made necessary by the ferocity of the insurgency.”

Are the Iraqis themselves also ‘shielded from reality’ in his view? Again, the figures contradict the subjective perception of these journalists. In fact, the already respectable “Right Direction” figure for Iraq is increasing, from 49% in January to 67% in April. Even (actually especially) among Sunnis the right direction figure has gone from only 15% in January to 49% in April.

Let me give you a simple test of media bias. Ask the Iraqi “right track-wrong track” question from American reporters, the Military and the general population. The Iraqis themselves are of course the norm, any deviation from their answers is indication of bias. What results would you expect?


Uppdate:

I incorrectly wrote that "Jeff Jarvis accused him of having ‘turned on his colleagues’". He did no such thing, he only qouted a letter from Lovelady on his homepage. My mistake, and sincere apologize to Mr. Jarvis.

Comments


Noumenon wrote:

While the supply of electricity has increased from 80.000 MWH in the beginning of 2004 to 110.000 today, demand has exploded from slightly over 100.000 MWH to 160.000 MWH.

What meaning does this have? It's a supply and demand curve that do not cross. How can you tell whether I demand two donuts a day or ten if you only supply me with one? Or is this a measure of the peak demand before the power blacks out? The Notes Page is missing.

Accourding the Brookings Institutes Iraq Index the hours of electricity this month are estimated at 13.3 hours, well above the 10 hours last year. The Average of mega watt hours (MWH) was 111,400, the highest number recorded and 17% above prewar figures.

You're being a little hasty here, judging by the chart you cite showing supply and demand. The average reached within 2% of this level last August, too, and then subsided to below prewar levels. It's true to say "the supply of electricity has increased from 80.000 MWH in the beginning of 2004 to 110.000 today," but that gives an impression of steady growth compared to the equally-accurate statement "the supply of electricity has increased from 80.000 MWH three months ago to 110.000 today."

I thank you for the links, but you don't seem to be doing a fair interpretation of the numbers. Here, I'll check another one:

"Hoyt also writes that 'The unemployment rate is between 30 percent and 40 percent'. Oddly, he neglects to mention that the unemployment level was some 50-60% in late 2003, and has declined steadily since."

That's not my reading of the table "Brookings Nationwide Employment Rate Since May, 2003," on page 26. It shows unemployment of 50-60% only up till August (surrounded by N/A's from bad data), then gives ranges of 40-55% in late 2003, then levels off. Okay, the margins of the estimate creep down from 30-45% to 27-40%, but that's not the kind of steady decline I was expecting when given two endpoints of 50% and 30%. Hoyt's statement is more accurate.

The rhetorical effect of those strong, bold-face numbers is impressive, until you see the slanted language it takes to put a bold face on those numbers. I'd rather not have the mainstream media report figures like this.

-- July 28, 2005 3:57 AM


Steven wrote:

Ha Ha, it's because thousands of allied occupiers need more electricity.

But nice try.

-- July 28, 2005 7:47 AM


Jeff Jarvis wrote:

Jeff Jarvis here. I did no such thing. I quoted someone who did and quoted his rather, well, emotional emails about it. But I did note attack Yost. Please correct this.

-- July 28, 2005 9:55 AM


Anonymous wrote:

1. Electricty

If you go to page 11 you will see the electricity data with a Demand curve. It seems quite reasonable to me that the demand for electrify can be accurately estimated in a situation when you have rationing. It is simply how many people who want to buy “donuts” at a given price that you have to turn away.

You are right that the supply of electrify has fluctuated, (as has the situation in Iraq). Now does it seem more honest to you to report *both* up and downs or only downs? By the way, you really don't not find it dishonest by Hoyt to use one of the short peak months of electricity production in all of 2004 as the norm when attacking Yost?!? I remember this false qoute about there being no improvemnt in electricy even reported by Hume.

I think it is established that the situation in Iraq took a downward turn in the beginning of 2004 when the insurgency gained strength and we had the Sadr situation. But most the data seems to suggest solid improvements in 2005, especially since the elections. This is the period I (and incidentally Yost) is talking about, with the media still reporting only decline.

However much you want to believe Hoyt it makes no sense to say “there is little good news to report from Iraq" when most the data are at peak or near peak levels since the beginning of the war.
2. Unemployment

“Hoyt's statement is more accurate.”

Sorry, but how in heck is Hoyts statement more “accurate” if you acknowledge that Unemployment has dropped sharply? He uses a high level to give the impression of increase, not mentioning that the level used to be even higher. This is a textbook definition of misleading your readers, most of whom have no idea what the average level of unemployment in Iraq used to be.

The average of the Brookings figure has gone from 55 to 34, a decline of some 21.5% from peak levels given. While the estimated levels vary, I don’t know of any source that denies a reduction in unemployment. Yet this is exactly the impression Hoyt (and the media in general) gives.

In the long WAPO article recently there were no references to the decline in unemployment! Instead they used the same tricks (confusing high level increase, using anecdotal evidence) to give the impression of an increase. Is this accurate economic journalism? Remember WAPO is probably the highest quality paper in the US together with the WSJ. Let me quote Brookings directly to you:

“There is an inherent difficulty in measuring the Iraqi rate of unemployment over time. Because recent estimates are likely to be more accurate than older ones, but also higher, this means that despite an improvement in the economic situation nationwide, the numbers give the impression that it is getting worse. Considering the increase in entrepreneurial activity after the end of the war, we have for the purposes of this database assumed that there has been an improvement in unemployment levels, and hence weighted information supporting such a conclusion heavier than contradictory data reports.”

The rhetorical effect of those strong, bold-face numbers is impressive, until you see the slanted language it takes to put a bold face on those numbers. I'd rather not have the mainstream media report figures like this.

I use rhetoric’s yes, but as a complement to the facts, not as a substitute as Hoyt does. It is amazing to me that you admit unemployment is the lowest ever reported since the war began and electricity production the highest, and yet think it is good reporting to say things have not improved.
If I wanted to be cute I would say that Brouwer fixed point theorem proves Hoyt wrong. How can there be no improvement when you are at a peak?

What bothers me most is that as someone who is curious about the actual economic development in Iraq it is impossible for me to rely on the media give me accurate information. It is not just their clear ideological agenda, but also the sheer ignorance. I have not once seen anyone in the meida even MENTION the subsidies on electricity and their effect on the blackouts!

Steven I would think the US army has their own electricty sources, rather than hooking juice from Bagdad. But hey, nice try.

-- July 28, 2005 4:15 PM


Noumenon wrote:

Oh, rationing! That's a good way to generate a demand curve beyond what you can actually supply. Just see how much the Iraqis ask for and if it's more each month. You'd have to watch them for inflating their needs to try to get a bigger share of the electricity. But at least I understand where they got the number now.

He uses a high level to give the impression of increase, not mentioning that the level used to be even higher. This is a textbook definition of misleading your readers,

You're right, he's omitting important context. My criticism of you really collapses to a complaint about the phrase "steady decline." You weren't even inaccurate to say that, because the rate is monotonically decreasing, it's just that I think of "steady decline" as describing a graph that looks like y = -¼x, not y = 1/x². That's why I can still agree with Hoyt that "progress is not being made" even while conceding that things "have improved." The improvement in unemployment was all in 2003 and the chart for electricity shows no visible improvement. (It is running 10% above last year, though, a fact that got lost in the arguing over whether July's number is exciting on its own.)

By the way, you really don't not find it dishonest by Hoyt to use one of the short peak months of electricity production in all of 2004 as the norm when attacking Yost?!?

It may be the month with the least production, but it was also the month with the least difference between this year and last year. The shortage had been between 2.5 hours and 6 hours every month this year. So he was using the least damning number to make his case, which is pretty honest of him. Much better than trumpeting the only number that agreed with him all year.

I have not once seen anyone in the meida even MENTION the subsidies on electricity and their effect on the blackouts!

Yes, that is a crucial detail and one reason (besides your fun, impassioned style) that I will keep reading you even if we do cross swords from time to time.

-- July 30, 2005 9:41 AM


Jeff Jarvis wrote:

thanks for the correx.

-- July 30, 2005 8:24 PM


wow power leveling wrote:

dsfsdf

-- May 20, 2009 9:31 PM


Post a comment