– several links about BBC coverage of terrorism and related issues.
Not exactly bias, but pretty funny. John Simpson today (18th) has an article about Afghanistan headlined “Resurgent Taleban. John Simpson asks if the war with the Taleban can be won.” (link.) If you do a
search for “resurgent taliban” on the bbc website, you’ll find a preview of Newsnight, 20th July 2006, in which John Simpson talks about a “resurgent taliban”.
(link)It’s John Simpson’s yearly resurge.
On 11 September 2001 armed people took control of four planes that were flying above the US.
Following the links to another page called Why did they do it?, here is the BBC explanation:
No-one can say exactly why the attacks were carried out.
But, the way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, and the hijackers are likely to have been from this group.The US thinks a group called al-Qaeda is behind the attacks. Al-Qaeda leaders have in the past declared a holy war – called a Jihad – against the US. As part of this Jihad al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001 there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden said he wanted them to leave.
On this day when the BBC informs the world it has to be just a little more impartial, they report on a story from Afghanistan where a suicide bomber murders 3 people as well as himself. So on that note what do you think the headline for said article should be?
Suicide bomber kills 3.
3 people killed in suicide bomb attack
Suicide bomber strikes Kabul.
Well that is how any impartial news agency would report such a story . So just how do the BBC report on the above in light of its quest to report impartially?
hillhunt
Your failure to distance yourself from Reith’s attack upon the hard earned qualifications from Britain’s most august educational institutions presumably means you tacitly agree with them.
If that is the case I apologise to Reith for saying he had sunk below hillhunts level, he obviously had only sunk to hillhunts level not below it.
Look on the bright side hillhunt at least Reith didn’t mention your self dignity prospects.
How are they looking, since I’m on.
Ryan:
I hate to be a pedant but “Most trustworthy” is really not the same as “trustworthy”.
Most simply means that of all the news available to Afghans, the service the majority preferred to trust was the BBC.
In any event, we live in an imperfect world. Saying something is the most trustworthy is still a great tribute when you acknowledge that even the best get things wrong….
Oh, and even if you discount the special visits from Welsh Huw and Sir Simpson, Reith established a decent case for the strength of the Afghan BBC bureau.
But you don’t really want to hear this, do you?
Ryanair: Good value. But watch the small print.
BaggieJ:
I’d never dream of attacking someone’s education. It’s what they do with it which interests me.
And in that vein, what exactly are self dignity prospects?
.
“Most simply means that of all the news available to Afghans, the service the majority preferred to trust was the BBC.”
Which is just saying the same again. They could be all bad but the BBC is slightly better. But you added a new error of your very own only 8.9million Afghans said this, which is not the majority of Afghans because the population of Afghanistan is 29million.
But you are right. I am guilty of hyperbole when I said the BBC has “no-one” in Afghanistan in a normal week. Seems they have a couple. No-one in Miyanishan though. Only a couple of policemen with mobile phones programmed with the number of a Rueters journalist with an overactive imagination. So I’m sorry about the hyperbole – but at least you get my hyperbole for free. The BBC hyperbole is costing you £130 a year (unless you are an Afghan of course…)
Baggie J:
Sorry, another curious phrase. What does this mean?
If the BBC is so much better than the other broadcasters round the world as you claim perhaps it could start making an example of all the lazy ploughman’s lunches across the disciplines.
Cheese? Pickle? Bread?
Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
Ryan:
we all know that ‘Eton & Trinity man’ Reith is an inveterate (and supercilious) snob… there’s a fair few that remember his comments to Pounce some time ago.
.
hillhunt | 21.06.07 – 4:51 pm | #
“Cheese? Pickle? Bread?”
You got the BBC recipe for the ploughman’s wrong ( as usual, again).
It should be –
“shit, arsehole, toilet paper”.
Must try harder – UUUUUUUrgh.
.
John Reith said:
“Happily the average Afghan is somewhat brighter. They recently voted the BBC the most trustworthy news source on Afghan affairs • ahead of all those new FM stations and VoA.
BBC audience in Afghanistan: c 9 million.
Ryan says ‘incompetent’. 8.9m Afghan people say: ‘on the money’.”
So what kind of vote was that a national vote, phone in to the bbc(like big brother) or a poll?
How many votes casted?
What was the geographical spread?
How do you get the number of 9 million for your audience?
John Reith:
There is an other broadcaster which thinks it is the most popular in afghanistan.
http://www.rferl.org/releases/2005/12/373-011205.asp
Then you claim a audience of 8.9 million. I find it not very credible that in country where only a small percentage of people have electricity and are extremely poor(one of the poorest countries in the world) that they listen on regular bases to the BBC.
One thing I find annoying in many news rapports(not only the BBC) is that when they refer to a poll or draw conclusion out of a poll they forget to mention the statistics of the poll. In the above mentioned link they provide the statistics of the poll;
“InterMedia Survey Institute supervised the survey for the BBG from August 31 to September 15, 2005, interviewing 2,038 adults 15 and older in 31 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces (no research was conducted in Zabul, Nimruz and Nurestan provinces). The margin of error is plus/minus 2.2 percent.”
This is something all bradcaster should do when refering to a poll.
Hello, success!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612651.stm
Looks like a few people besides myself complained about the brainwashing attempt by the BBC. They made significant alterations to both this page and the “Who did it” page. Most significantly, I think, they mention Bin Laden’s celebratory video, which was a main point in my complaint.
I’m glad they made these changes. They are no longer attempting to indoctrinate British children into believing sick conspiracy theories about a mass murder, one in which 30 people from my street were killed in a pretty horrible way. I’m not even going to ask about the beliefs of whoever wrote/edit the original piece. One has to assume they were at least partial to the sick conspiracy theories in order to write something like that. One hopes at least that particular BBC employee got some enlightenment on the matter.
Trolls take note – some people actually do other things besides whinging about BBC bias. And it didn’t take all that long. I – and many others, I’m sure – made a logical argument, and a significant improvement was made.
Huw Edwards finds here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6225970.stm
Senior military figures want no suggestion that the Taleban is “resurgent” or “back in business”.
Does he not talk to John Simpson? Or maybe he does?
Hello, success!
David Preiser | 21.06.07 – 10:50 pm |
Success indeed – kepp up the good work.
Mike_s | 21.06.07 – 8:02 pm
Since you seem genuinely interested in polling data, here are the answers to your questions:
So what kind of vote was that… a national vote, phone in to the bbc …or a poll?
A poll. It was carried out by ASCOR (The Amsterdam School of Communications Research). Fieldwork was by face-to-face interview conducted 14- 24 December 2006.
How many votes cast?
The sample size was 3000.
What was the geographical spread?
32 out of 34 provinces.
The provinces of Urozgan and Zabul were excluded because
they were considered too dangerous at the time of the
study.
How do you get the number of 9 million for your audience?
Using standard MR techniques. The sample was selected to reflect the overall society (urban/rural etc). The precise figure is 8.9m.
I find it not very credible that in country where only a small percentage of people have electricity and are extremely poor (one of the poorest countries in the world) that they listen on regular basis to the BBC.
Some facts about the media market in Afghanistan that may surprise you:
83% of urban dwellers have access to a TV set. Just under 20% have access to cable/satellite. In rural areas 23% have a TV set in their home but fewer than 10% have cable/satellite.
57% of rural Afghans and 55% of urban ones regularly listen to the radio. The chief reason for doing so is to get news. Just over half (53%) of radio listeners are men, 47% are women.
On the radio, the BBC broadcasts in Dari, Pashto, Uzbek and English and achieves the highest audience share of any media brand.
On TV • the BBC broadcasts only in English (BBC World).
The most popular TV station is Tolo TV (a private company owned by an ethnic Afghan living in Australia). It broadcasts in local languages.
Among the best known global TV networks, BBC World has a national reach in Afghanistan of 4.6% (16.4% in urban centres), Al Jazeera gets 4.1% and CNN 0.8%.
The sample size was 3000.
What was the geographical spread?
32 out of 34 provinces.
So that’s less than 100 samples per province.
About as credible as the Lancet’s estimation of deaths in Iraq.
The BBC, Its love for the Taliban and half a story
‘Afghans killed’ in air strikes
Some 25 civilians have died during aerial bombing by foreign forces in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, local residents and senior police say.
……………
The accounts were backed by the district police chief, and the provincial police chief, Mohammed Husain Andiwal. Mr Andiwal said Taleban fighters attacked Nato forces first. “Last night, around 01:30, Nato forces bombed the village… as a result of the bombing 25 people were killed. They included women, three babies between 6 to 10 months one, one mullah of a mosque and other elders.” Mr Andiwal alleged that foreign forces had launched air strikes on the village without consulting with their Afghan counterparts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6229422.stm
And here is how Sky news reports on what provincial police chief, Mohammed Husain Andiwal had to say on the matter;
“Provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal said the Taliban attacked police and used civilian houses for cover in Gereshk district. He said the militants used at least two civilian compounds for cover during the clashes.”Nato was targeting the areas where the fire was coming from … and two compounds were completely destroyed, and the families living in those compounds were killed,” Mr Andiwal said.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1271802,00.html?f=rss
AFP reports;
“Provincial police chief Colonel Mohammad Hassan told AFP that the bombing came after Taliban fighters attacked an ISAF convoy from among houses and gardens in a village.About 20 Taliban were also reported killed in the strike shortly after midnight, he said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070622/ts_afp/afghanistanunrestnat0
The Times;
“Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Smith, a NATO spokesman, said: “We are concerned about reports that some civilians may have lost their lives during this attack.
“However, it must be noted that it was insurgents who initiated this attack, and in choosing to conduct such attacks in this location and at the time, the risk to civilians was probably deliberate.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1971509.ece
The BBC, Its love for the Taliban and half a story
About as credible as the Lancet’s estimation of deaths in Iraq.
When did that report come out i.e. when was the 650,000 dead claimed and over what period?
If we can agree that things are no better than they were and that the death rate has increased, then surely 1 million would be dead by now if The Lancet’s methodology is correct – and 1 million would be missed, wouldn’t they!
I have never seen the BBC has never retracted its support for the lancet’s figures (unless a beeboid cares to show me otherwise).
Presumably they believe the deaths continue at the same rate.
That rate is over 500 people every single day without exception since the invasion of Iraq, if a day has less then another would have to have correspondingly more.
To say that they are clearly joke figures is to put it mildly.
The fact that the Lancet published and defended them means to me they have about as much credibility as the Daily Mail after the Zinoviev letter.
In a Daily Mail level move the BBC has reported but not denied the lancet’s figures.
Second never should be ever, sorry for the confusion
The BBC often has ‘problems’ with casualty estimates.
For example I remember last year, during the Israel Hizbullah war in Lebanon, being assured by the BBC that more than 54 had been killed at Qana including more than 34 children.
Very precise figures, not over 50 or the like, they can’t have been estimates.
Yet when human rights watch looked into it there was confirmed to be only 28 deaths in total.
The Times;
“Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Smith, a NATO spokesman, said: “We are concerned about reports that some civilians may have lost their lives during this attack.
“However, it must be noted that it was insurgents who initiated this attack, and in choosing to conduct such attacks in this location and at the time, the risk to civilians was probably deliberate.”
In which case, according to the Geneva Conventions and the Laws & Customs of War, the “insurgents” are guilty of war Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, and it is they who are legally responsible for the deaths of civilians, but don’t expect the BBC to tell you, or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International to condemn the Taliban.
BBC: We love the underdog and don’t blame him for being a dog.
1 million would be missed, wouldn’t they!
& if 1 million dead, how many injured? 4 million? By now it ought to be difficult to get your truck bomb past the massed wheelchairs.
Far from questioning the Lancet figure, the BBC will have been delighted by its recent use by one of their tranzi chums, ElBaradei of the IAEA.
He said in an interview for the BBC
I thought Iraq was highly unlikely, well then we still have 700,000 people who have died.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/AttackWarning.html
BaggieJonathan:
The BBC often has ‘problems’ with casualty estimates.
The recent Lebanese offensive against the “Palestinian refugee camp” is a good example.
Compare the reported causalties of a sustained and constant bombardment of a highly crowded civilian area by the Lebanese army with the reported figures from last summer’s Israel/Hezballah conflict involving highly targeted pin-point strikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6229732.stm
A month of fighting has left 170 people dead in Lebanon’s worst internal violence since the 1975-90 civil war.
And the rest!
David Preiser | 21.06.07 – 10:50 pm,
Well done. You can chalk that one up as a rare instance of someone at the BBC doing something about a valid complaint on an extremely serious issue.
I also note with interest that John Reith evidently felt that a statistical analysis was a far more important detail to get bogged down in than the despicable CBBC doing its utmost to indoctrinate children that America is misguided and terror is OK.
Bryan,
Thanks, but I don’t take credit for the CBBC fix. I don’t believe that anyone there would go through all that trouble just because one American bitched at them. Even though I think my complaint was calm and logical, without resorting to too much name-calling (actually, I did use the terms “indoctrinate” and “conspiracy theories”), with the falsehoods and instructions where to go for corrections (i.e. “call yer effin’ news desk) clearly spelled out. I wrote the same thing, save for a couple of minor notes, to both the official complaints section of the whole BBC site, and to whoever reads the complaints in the CBBC section. I even stated that I was not complaining about bias but about inexcusable factual erros.
I can only assume that lots of people pointed out what utter nonsense they had written, and that somebody at the BBC took their responsiblity seriously and made the change.
I must also say that I think this incident points to a combination of Ryan’s theory – that they’re not biased, just really stupid – and the B-BBC charges of institutional bias. I don’t think anyone expects some twenty-something junior copy editor typing away in a CBBC cubicle was trying to engage in a sinister plot to corrupt British children. This is just another dopey attempt to simplify major political issues for the kiddies that went wrong, in this case horribly so. However, it should sadden all of us – BBC employees and BBC supporters included – that a BBC employee is so ignorant about such an important issue. Not only that, but this whole feature on the mass murder covered several pages, and must have been approved by a senior editor. What does this say about the ignorance of the editor? Further, what does this say about the entire mindset of the CBBC department when they write garbage like this?
People with this mindset do not get hired in large numbers by accident. I’m glad at least a couple of them learned something this week. I don’t care if it changes their attitudes towards America, President Bush, Joooos, whatever. All I care is that they don’t teach complete bullshit to an entire generation of British children.
David Preiser,
Of course, we can only speculate. We don’t how many complaints they received and I imagine that they would only act if they got a veritable flood of complaints. But who knows, yours could have been the one that eventually made them sit up and take notice.
It’s now a fair reflection of what happened, but I found this interesting under Why did they do it:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
Funny how the CBBC reverts to adult language and complicated sentence structures when it’s trying to justify terror to children. Well, I suppose it’s too much to expect CBBC to talk about Islam’s drive for world domination through terror, whether anyone makes Muslims “angry” or not.
I’m not sure that I agree with the “stupidity” angle. In trying to twist facts for children CBBC appears to be following BBC guidelines – which amount to twisting facts for adults by never representing terror in a bad light (along with the unwritten rule of never representing Americans in a good light but always as stupid Yanks).
So in the sense that they know very well what they are doing, they ain’t dumb.
Bryan,
I agree that there still seems to be a hint of the ol’ “they are right to be angry at the US” on the “Why did they do it?” page. I can live with that, as they do state that Bin Laden’s primary reason for starting all of it was because of US troop presence in his beloved Saudi Arabia. That is so far beyond what most Leftoids are willing to admit, that I’ll give them full marks for it.
Of course, I have to deduct at least half off for still leaving it as Al Qaeda “are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.” And then they lose the rest of the points for the final line that “he knew the attacks were going to happen,” which is, as pounce would say, only half a story. Why they can’t come out and say that he placed the order and paid for it I can’t understand, unless they are still being deliberately obtuse. But I’m sure if I complain again, the only reaction at CBBC would be, “There’s just no pleasing some people.”
As it is, the article contradicts itself, but at least the gist of it is that Al Qaeda has declared their intent to attack the US, and Bin Laden had advance knowledge of the attacks. I guess he heard it from the same people who told all those Joooos to stay home that day.
But still, the “Who did it” page is accurate, and leaves no question that Bin Laden and his minions were behind it all. So full marks for that one.
I suppose that leaves the final score for the BBC at nil, but this is a major improvement.
If I’m honest, I must admit that I probably wouldn’t have written either complaint if I hadn’t been lurking around B-BBC for some time. Having seen others submit complaints and report stealth edits, and other successful changes, I was encouraged to do so myself, rather than just whine in an echo chamber. Seeing as how knacker made an attempt to discourage me from doing so, I felt it was doubly important to make the effort, and then post about any changes made on the CBBC site. Lessons learned all round, I think.
David says “I don’t think anyone expects some twenty-something junior copy editor typing away in a CBBC cubicle was trying to engage in a sinister plot to corrupt British children. ”
You must be new to this site.
Lessons learned all round, I think.
True, except by people like our inspector of odorous piles of waste – who demonstrates his hit-and-run commenting style yet again.
David Gregory, consensus does not imply truth. There is a “consensus” in the literature that temperature is an interval random variable when the truth is that it is ordinal see
( http://pennance.us/?p=32 ). This means that temperature averages are scale dependent and hence relative. The same data set can be consistent with an increase in mean on one thermometric scale and a decrease in another. Today’s climatologists do not take enough math courses.
Sorry. I put the previous post in the wrong thread. -Please ignore.
So that’s less than 100 samples per province.
About as credible as the Lancet’s estimation of deaths in Iraq.
Biodegradable | 22.06.07 – 11:38 am
No. A good deal more credible, in my view.
In the UK a MORI political poll typically samples 1500-2000 people.
Afghanistan has only about half the UK’s population and its society is a good deal more homogenous. A sample size of 3000 is better than good enough.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/index-news.phtml
A bit late in the thread but:
About as credible as the Lancet’s estimation of deaths in Iraq.
Biodegradable | 22.06.07 – 11:38 am
No. A good deal more credible, in my view.
I once had a conversation with a pollster who told me that polls are unreliable with Arabs (Yes I know Afghans are not Arabs). He told me that in Arab culture it was rude to disagree with a guest* so the Arab host would try to give the answers he thought the guest wanted to hear thus invalidating the poll.
Are we sure that polls in Afghan society are credible on any subject ❓
* As the pollster has been invited into the Arabs home he is by definition a guest while in Western Society he is a ‘tolerated’ but ‘understood’ interruption to the householder’s routine. This distinction is important.
“I once had a conversation with a pollster who told me that polls are unreliable with Arabs (Yes I know Afghans are not Arabs). He told me that in Arab culture it was rude to disagree with a guest”
Any poll is unreliable, whether it’s to Arabs or not, if the subject has an expectation of what the interviewer wants to hear.
Hence reputable pollsters don’t make it clear why a question is being asked or who is commissioning the survey.
E.g. asking a question along the lines of “what TV channel” or “what radio channel” do you use regularly and then asking follow up questions on frequently used channels would produce no discernible bias towards any broadcaster.
My grandfather had a ph.d in electronic engineering along with his degree in physics. Engineering is very much an academic subject.
Hence reputable pollsters don’t make it clear why a question is being asked or who is commissioning the survey.
Works in Europe/America. The point is the Arab will always try to guess from all sorts of clues like, clothes, accent, vocabulary, does he hold his pinky out when drinking tea (or whatever is the local equivalent).
Will the polled guess correctly? Perhaps not but the credibility of the poll is still compromised.
Deegee, you’ve managed to get from an anecdote of your mate’s that Arabs are unique in using all sorts of micro clues, however relevant or irrelevant, about an interviewer to a poll on broadcast share in the non-Arab country of Afghanistan being compromised.
That’s quite a leap.
The point is that standard polling techniques may not work in a country as Afghanistan without a culture of honestly answering polls. The 4% margin of error which pollsters claim in Western countries may be far higher to the point where the polls are useless.
It’s not just the Arabs. Imagine a poll taken before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Those who do answer will assume the pollster (by virtue of the permission to make this poll) works for the government and give the answer they think the Central Committee of the Communist Party wanted to hear.
The moral of this discussion. The Lancet figures were simply wrong. The Afghanistan figures may be just as wrong for cultural reasons.
It will be many years before some PhD student at Kabul University does a thesis on Afghani attitudes to opinion polls. Until then I’n dropping this subject.
“The moral of this discussion. The Lancet figures were simply wrong.”
You mean the one where around 80% of respondents submitted death certificates to support their answers? How does you mate’s anecdote lead to the conclusion that the Lancet’s polling methodology was flawed exactly?
You mean the one where around 80% of respondents submitted death certificates to support their answers?
Anon | 26.06.07 – 12:58 pm
Actually 92% produced death certificates, but that doesn’t mean 600,000 death certificates were counted.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s04-woiq.html
The best tally would come from counting every death certificate issued in the country in the three years before and three years since the invasion. But there is no central reporting mechanism for this in the country.
…
“One of the real risks in this is that people report deaths that don’t occur, so we did ask for death certificates. And in 92 percent of cases, they were provided.”
To be sure, the researchers of the Lancet study says possible errors leave a range between a low of 392,979 additional deaths and a high of 942,636. The 601,000 figure is the median.
See also:
Lancet study of Iraqi deaths is statistically unsound and unreliable
“Actually 92% produced death certificates, but that doesn’t mean 600,000 death certificates were counted”
When asked to provide them. Only 87% of people were asked. Hence the lower number I quoted. My point about unfounded concerns over polling Arabs in the Lancet study remains.
I’m not going to debate the Lancet’s statistical, rather than polling, methodology as it’s not relevant to deegee’s point of Arabs being inherently trustworthy in polls, a charge which, if levelled at Jews would bring rightful and instaneous charges of anti-semitism.
I suggest you read http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lancetiraq/ for detailed coverage of the rebuttals and we don’t debate it further as I’m guessing neither of us are epidemiological statisticians.
… deegee’s point of Arabs being inherently trustworthy in polls, a charge which, if levelled at Jews would bring rightful and instaneous charges of anti-semitism.
Anon | 26.06.07 – 1:58 pm
Those charges would instantly be refuted with claims that they were “justified criticism”.
Why bring Jews into it anyway?
We were talking about Afghanistan. Perhaps we need a modified version of Godwin’s Law, ie; whoever brings Jews and antisemitism into a debate about something else automatically loses the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Let’s call it Godwinsky’s Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Jews or antisemitsm approaches one.
“Why bring Jews into it anyway?”
Because antisemitism, or perceived antisemitism is deegee’s big issue hence the comparison. Yet he seems perfectly at home making broad, unsupported statements about how trustworthy Arabs and Afghans are.
I mean, seriously. As another person with highly sensitive antenna to all things antisemitic, how credible would you find someone who said “I once had a conversation with a pollster who told me that polls are unreliable with Jews” and concluded that basically any poll among Jews was inherently compromised – the implication being that no matter how diligent the research, their views were suspect.
Because antisemitism, or perceived antisemitism is deegee’s big issue hence the comparison.
Anon | 26.06.07 – 4:08 pm
Of course it’s all a figment of his imagination.
Isn’t it?
They used to say that Apartheid was a pigment of the imagination.
Sometimes I wonder if my arthritis is a ligament of my imagination.
The thread continues, so will I.
And in 92 percent of cases, they (death certificates) were provided. Anon have you ever done any polling?
A stranger comes to your home and asks very personal and emotionally difficult questions (98% of the targetted respondents were at home and willing to comply – pollster’s heaven!). He demands documents (sometimes multiple documents) and people not only have them at hand but are willing and able to produce them!
Try that in Paddington.
Anon | 26.06.07 – 4:08 pm
Because antisemitism, or perceived antisemitism is deegee’s big issue hence the comparison.
With the one very recent exception of the Glastonbury Jew(ish) Tent I don’t think I have ever commented here at B-BBC on antisemitism. My big issues tend to be Israel and the Palestinians and education.
“I once had a conversation with a pollster who told me that polls are unreliable with Jews”
Actually the pollster also discussed Jews. He said that ultra Orthodox Jews (and Holocaust survivors) tend to refuse to answer polls in numbers far greater than their percentage of the population. In some cases they will answer their individual opinion but vote according to the directions of their spiritual leader (rebbe). Hence poll figures for that sector are often unreliable.
I didn’t bring that up because his observation about Arabs was more likely to be relevant to the Afghan example.
Questions about the validity of polling for certain groups will keep socioligists and statisticians busy for the foreseeable future. I think you are just being too touchy.
Deegee, to recap: you grossly oversimplified this research from [I paraphrase] “Arabs answer what they expect you to want to hear” to the “Afghan poll is compromised”.
A non sequitur. And, more to the point, not restricted to Arabs. Everyone does – it’s one of the guiding principles of setting up surveys that your subject doesn’t know what the answer you expect is. Even then, if the survey has no bias, people can still answer the “right way” if they can know it independently.
For example: last week I had a meeting with a senior exec from a burger chain who said that across Europe their customers always said they wanted healthier stuff. But when it was introduced, no-one bought it. The point being that people *aspired* to being healthier but didn’t action it. They answered falsely, albeit unwittingly.
But, this doesn’t mean European consumers are all idiots or untrustworthy. And one wouldn’t conclude that any poll among Europeans were inherently compromised, as you did for the Afghan broadcasting poll and the Lancet poll.
I’d just like to mention that Melanie Phillips says in the article thaT SHE WAS “Guided by a couple of eagle-eyed blog-posters”. This is an example of courtesy & good manners I would not expect from most of the press who regularly use each others stpries let alone ours.