Well, I guess if you're job is dependant on selling newspapers to the lefties, you've got to distort the facts. It's either that or they'd see the truth and have to come up with an entirely new set of complaints against the government, which is just too inconvenient.

Yeah I know I have stayed away from commenting on these things for a long time. For the most part I just chalk it up to the typical left/right fights that are so common. But I gotta tell ya Ron, you are the reason I am commetning this time, yeah you hooked me this time.

Please show me where there was a distortion of facts. You cannot accept the items that Jason mentions due to the fact that the article does not speak about the preinvasion, but instead focuses on once Saddam/Iraq was invaded. Jason points out the 2000 report, but remember that is preinvasion, not post (by a little over 2 years..taking into account the report probably came out after March 2000). Also the title that Jason is looking for was dealing with the comparison of preinvasion to now. Re-read this article and you will see that the text is a comparison of the timeframe since the "US-led invasion".

Now, were the article an all encompassing one which ranged from the 2000 report until now, then you would have a case and I would be more inclined to agree with you. But it doesn't.

It's called cherry picking, and it's one of those "damned lies" that make up statistics.

This is very much like someone claiming traffic deaths in the past three years in the US are going up and "something must be done" while ignoring that they have been dropping precipitously the previous ten. Or claiming rising oil prices mean we have finally run out, while ignoring that, adjusted for inflation, oil prices are still below the real peak twenty six years ago. Or claiming that since unemployment is up 25% from five years ago means the economy's in the toilet when a 25% rise actually raises the rate from 3% to 4% and is far below unemployment rates experienced eight years ago. And yet this is exactly what the media does, and constantly, because disaster sells.

This is what we are all objecting to... the heavy-handed cherry-picking all media outlets engage in to push their own agendas. It is sloppy, mean spirited, and patronizing. I'm sick of it, so is most of the blogosphere, and in actual fact so are most people around the world. It's one of the reasons blogs have had such an impact.

Claiming that this headline game does not represent a distortion is perhaps technically true. If we put blinkers on and read only what they want us to, there are no lies here. However, when you step back and realize there is important data that seems to have been willfully ignored by a carefully contrived set of boundaries, then the case becomes far less clear.

When you realize those boundaries were selected in an apparent effort to undercut an endeavor that men and women are dying for, it becomes obscene.

The reason I bring up the points I do is because in all the conversations I have had with the supporters of the invasion (outside of you guys because I don't think we have actually had this conversation) have always said that the before doesn't matter. The reason they were saying this was in defense of the changing reasons for the invasion. They tell me that that is the past and what we should be looking at the [good] changes because of the invasion.

This article is about the changes becuase of the invasion and now the other side is pulling another trick. Another spin.

I understand what you are getting at, but blasting against an outlet because they are focusing on the numbers regarding the invasion looks to me like grasping. Yes grasping. Grasping at any chance to say that no negative news can come out of Iraq. That nothing but positive stories are able to be displayed. That by showing that there might be cracks in the system post invasion is wrong and is only doing so because they are liberal and hate bush/america/freedom/etc. Whatever.

What is so wrong about seeing all the sides of the post invasion stats? What is so wrong about seeing something that is negative? Doesn't it give us something to take notice about and show where improvements might be necessary?

Joshua - as you know, I was certainly trying to hook folks, so WOOHOO! ;)

But to answer you, we've got the cherry-picking that Scott references and then changing your headline from "Iraq Child Malnutrition Rates Cut by Two Thirds" to "Children 'Starving' in New Iraq";cutting out parts of the story, etc., which both seem to point to a definite distortion and a media bias.

That being said, I have read the article and I'm still seeing a definite bias even past this. Mind you, I will certainly admit that my personal preference is factual scientific reporting and then let the readers interpret the data, ask for more specifics, etc. That and I tend to distrust the media in general; especially when they start slamming the US in general. From what I've seen in the past, the anti-American sentiment is all too prevalent and it's certainly coloring the reporting out there.

And, to top it off and put on my tinfoil hat, this is coming from the same organization that has been getting slammed in the 'oil for food' scandal, so this could also be a way of trying to redirect attention. It very well might not be, however, I've been involved in corporate politics for quite awhile and they don't seem to be that different from regular politics, so I get the feeling that I'm not entirely off-base here.

But, back to the article. My other problem is with its clear lack of actual definitions.

1 - Who prepared the 4% number? Was this from a pro-Saddam report? A report prepared by Saddam? What were the definitions for 'hungry' used in this report? Some of worry on this comes from the way things such as this are classified (look at obesity trends in the USA. NIH changed it's definition of 'obese' from 28% body fat to 25% in the late 90's, which lead to a huge jump in the obesity rate. On top of that, most reports haven't recategorized the data based on the new criteria, so I feel this sort of concern is legitimate.).
2 - What are the sample sizes? Are they representative of the entire population? Are they the same as the previous study?
3 - Is this report going to be published, along with the previous report, so we can scrutinize the data?
4 - What about other reports that show, for what appear to be the same definitions and timeframes, a much, much higher prewar malnurishment number?

Saying "what happened before doesn't matter" is not the same thing as saying "nothing happened before." The former acknowledges the past and claims it is irrelevant (with, one would assume, arguments to shore up that position). The latter treats it as if it does not exist (which neatly avoids having to argue at all). By choosing to ignore the pre-war conditions, the BBC went the latter route, and that's where it went wrong.

Lots of negative things come out of Iraq. So much bad news there's a guy who does his best to gather good news and post it where people can find it out. What we are "grasping" against is sloppy reportage with (at best) a barely concealed agenda or (at worst) an incompetence that almost beggars the imagination.

Showing cracks is well and good, but claiming a 6" crack is a sign of trouble while ignoring the people on either side that pushed it there from its original 6 foot size is egrigious. Acting as if it has always been a 6" crack is simply beyond the pale.

Ok, let's deal with hard, straight facts. Please provide me the proof of the changed headline. Please show me where the BBC had used the headline that Jason is suggesting before "changing it" to what is being used. Show me that this isn't just a hook that Jason used to show the cherry-picking that you guys are having fun with. Or that this headline is just what he would prefer to see instead of what was actually used. If you can provide that then you have something more stable to stand on and I will be able to find a common ground to agree with you on.

Cherry picking huh? So do you expect to have every story come out be an opus of the 2 years preinvasion and how is stands now? Or should we say take things a little different and see how the rebuilding is actually going by looking at the numbers that are the results of our actions and not taking into consideration the existing numbers . I think that looking at not only the big picture, but also seeing the changes that we have caused would be a good indication of how our help is going.

Let me just step to the side here for a second. I don't understand how we liberals are seen as wanting and hoping that this entire exercise fails. While we don't agree on the original establishment of the invasion the fact is that we are there and now we need to do what needs to be done to help make things work. By pointing out, or cherry picking as you guys seem to like, some of the potential weak spots it sheds light on things that need to be taken care of now.

While I cannot speak directly for Jason, the "amber alert" concept is, I am assuming, satirical. The BBC did not actually substitute one headline for another. What he's getting at, what we're all getting at, is that the BBC's apparent bias (or incompetence) led them to ignore a bigger, more positive story in order to focus on a smaller, more negative one. Hence the "missing" headline.

It is difficult for me to understand how Iraq's condition prior to the invasion is not relevant to a discussion of how things have changed since the war. That was, after all, the point. To reiterate: it was only by arbitrarily, perhaps even willfully, ignoring prewar conditions that BBC news was able to transform a largely positive and benign story into a very negative and alarmist one.

Liberals are seen as wanting and hoping for failure because your lunatic fringe is saying exactly that. Conservatives were seen as wanting and hoping for war because our lunatic fringe was saying exactly that. Neither is a correct judge of more centrist (well, more rational at any rate) opinions. By cherry-picking data to suit an agenda, BBC news is actually hindering reconstruction efforts by creating problems were none exist.

I know that Jason's "title" was not a real one, but Ron was using that as ammo for his outrage regarding the BBC. He used a non-truth to support his statements. Since he wanted to stick to facts, this is one that hurts his grounds. That is why I started this discussion.

I actually don't expect an opus for every story. That would probably lead to overkill very, very quickly. However, that being said, proper investigative reporting would lead one to ask the questions that I did above. If you can't do that (because all you have is a transcript of the announcement, meeting, etc.), then provide the ability to get to the actual statistics/reports/original news source. I'm certainly will to actually click thru to read the source material. In fact, I have a tendency to want to do this with the scientific articles (but at least those published in reputable journals have been peer-reviewed and are being sent to a broad spectrum for further peer review, so these are a bit easier to accept at face-value) which transfers over to the political as well.

And to answer the specific on this article, including some information on differing numbers wouldn't be too far outside of the realm for an unbiased reporter. Hell, even a leftist reporter would like this one: http://www.peace-action.org/camp/justice/iraqfs.pdf as it's the one that slams the sanctions we imposed by saying that they've lead to a 25% malnurishment rate.

As for proof, I'll look for it. Fair and reasonable demand in a debate like this.

Joshua, if I was wrong in taking Jason's comments as fact (which I certainly could be since I don't have that much experience with his blog), then I'll have to take that one on the chin. But I did send him an email asking for proof it exists.