The Politically Skewed UPI

On the political discussion board I visit, someone had posted this article (link is above) as FACT. Well, posted just this leading sentence:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

After reading this "headline", I knew something untoward was afoot and composed the following reply:

Article Editor

Correcting the misleading article of December 29th.

We had, with deliberate purpose and intent to mislead the reader, published the article using that leading sentence because we know that's all that's usually read when glancing through the paper.

We also know you rely on this first sentence as the whole story, when in fact, it usually is not.

We always use this deceitful tactic when printing news articles of political import because we know the reader usually will not investigate the article further for themselves. Twisting words to obfuscate the truth is very important to us. We can, and do, forward our political agenda, whatever that may be at any given time, every day. We readily admit we take advantage of our reader's lack of insight and willingness to be led.

In the interest of fair play, for just this one article (as there are hundreds of thousands in the archives), we now republish the first sentence, truthfully.

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The poster of that article STILL didn't get it.

He responded with this:

But isn't it just amazazing that of the 2000 people they randomly interviewed, they just happened to pick the only 2000 in the entire country that felt the situation was better before the invasion? The odds against are just astounding!

I'd like to see a source for your UPI quote, if you have one.

To which I responded:

Are you that thick? That's the second paragraph of the article you posted.

2,000 people is not the entire nation of Iraq as the article twisted you to believe.

And, he couldn't let it go, so then he posted:

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll." is not the second paragraph in that article, and as far as I can tell, you made it up as some sort of lame joke. I'd love to be proven otherwise.

And to answer your first question, I guess I'm probably considered thick by some. It is a relative term after all.

I'm sure some would consider carrying on a conversion with a rude anon who makes up statistics to support his argument to be a sure sign of thickness. In any case, the article didn't twist me to believe anything, I only sited the statistic. I didn't offer any interpretation.

I finished up with:

If you're unable to see through the twisting of words used in that article, as 2,000 people interviewed does not represent the 15 million the article purports, I don't know what to say to you.

I think you're feeling insulted and silly because what you posted was proven to be a political tactic you bought into; hook, line, and sinker. Most will and do fall into the same journalistic trap.

But, now you know better and can, at least I hope you will, investigate an article and the sources it cites to get the whole picture instead of relying on skewed and slanted headlines used to inflame, incite, or promote a particular agenda. You will read more carefully, to a complete understanding of the matter, before using twisted truth as your banner.

He said:

where you seem to be mistaken is in your assumption that I didn't read and fully comprehend the content of the article.

In fact I did note where the poll was taken, and though I'm sure all those other peaceful, settled and content areas of Iraq (which are where, exactly?) would skew the data in your favor by a few percent, I don't think that invalidates the result of the poll, which is that many, perhaps the vast majority, of the recipients of these U.S. military efforts still aren't happy with the results of those efforts.

You can chalk me up as a victim of the leftist news media if you like, but those data cannot be very encouraging to anybody.

Me:

I made no mistake and no assumption.

He:

Certainly you did. You assumed that I fell into a "journalistic trap". The distribution of poll respondants were not to your liking, perhaps, but I would accept the poll results as indicative of the country's opinion within a reasonable margin. Anbar covers roughly a third of Iraq, Najaf is in the south, Baghdad in the north... where exactly would you like included in the poll to gain the other 40% approval needed to break even?

Me:

I think being shown the lack of journalistic integrity and blatant misleading in the article you posted as "truth" and "the way it is" has thrown you for a loop.

It has nothing to do with my liking or not liking the article.

It has to do with the truth.

Not a "version" or a "twsiting" of the truth. Only the truth.

I think you have a problem with math.

By posting a headline which stated 90 percent of Iraq believed something, you wanted, just as the misleading headline did, for everyone to believe that 90% of Iraqis contributed to the poll.

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll."

90 percent of 15 million plus (the population of Iraq) is 13,500,000.

The headline would have you believe 13,500,000 of Iraqis believe something.

When investigating the article further, it is discovered 2,000 people were interviewed for the article's "poll" (100% of the participants). 2,000 people that live in terror-filled neighborhoods. Probably specifically targeted as fodder for this "poll" and the generation of the misleading headline.

2,000 is 0.013333333333333334% of 15,000,000 (Iraq's population).

There is a vast difference between 13,500,000 (90% of Iraq's population)

and

2,000 (0.01% of Iraq's population)

Yes, 90% of the 100% Iraqis interviewed for this article (2,000 people) feel this way, but 90% of all Iraqis (as the headline purports) may not. We only know the opinion of the 2,000 people that contributed their opinions to the poll cited as the basis for misleading headline.

I hope you understand how the math facts were twisted into something else for the purposes of this headline and the thousands of other articles published every day.

It is political gossip fodder and propaganda at the lowest level of social and journalistic irresponsibility. The intent with which it was originally published was wholly realized when you reposted the headline as "truth", when in fact, it is not.

He:

Yes, "about" 90% Iraqis feel that way. A reasonable inference from the results of the polled sample. I'm sure that you can appreciate that polling the entire population of Iraq tends to be logistically difficult.

Do you honestly believe that the 2000 interviewees were prescreened for political slant before the poll was taken? Or that those particular 2000 people come from three areas that are so divergent from the general opinion that the hidden, silent majority could carry the results into a favorable review of the invasion and occupation?

I think you have a problem with statistical representation, and I think you are feeling a little silly for suggesting that the general population feels anything but fear and anger at towards the occupation forces.

See there? We can both ascribe internal states to each other. Isn't that fun?

I think you have a problem with statistical analysis, too. Suggesting that the only way to gauge reality is a comprehensive survey of every citizen is ludicrous. The limited poll taken was a sample. A sample can be used to assess characteristics of a larger group. That's how polls work.

Me:

You're hopelessly misguided.

God help us all.

He:

Excellent retort, my friend.

Good night.

Me:

Projecting political propaganda, your personal feelings, or anything else onto the beliefs of the Iraqi people as a whole (of whom you know the personal feelings of how many?) by way of politically slanted news articles, which, proven here are wildly skewed, is irresponsible.

You've completely missed the point, I think purposefully, in order to perpetuate this often-(mis)read and believed misleading information.

What of the character and veracity of the author of this article for the UPI? Was it his/her intention to mislead people with broad and sweeping comments that are based, very loosely, on a journalistic twisting of facts? Yes, it was. Right in the headline.

Your insistence at perpetuating this misinformation leads me to believe you find nothing wrong with how the article (and hundreds of thousands more just like it) is maliciously misleading.

And, because of that, I must ask you to refrain from calling me "friend".

Good night.

He:

I'll be happy to refrain.

Do you have a registered handle that I might look for to avoid such an insult to your journalistically integral self?

I think the irresponsibility you seek is more easily found in those who led our nation to unprovoked war, or in your own statements ascribing motives and feelings to people (myself, the journalist, the Iraqi people outside the poll) based on your own politically slanted views.

Me:

Again, you've completely missed the point. Those blinders you have on must be HUGE.

I have stated no political views whatsoever. Not one. You, however, have projected on to me what you believe my political opinion is for me.

I merely pointed out to you the blatant lie of the headline which you believed and republished thereby perpetuating that lie. I believe you did so unknowingly and with good intention, but, I could not let such a blatant misrepresentation go by without comment. And perhaps a bit of instruction as to the "bad faith" of the media.

You've been caught off-guard and unawares. You've never been shown, in black and white, how the media lies. Your illusion is shattered. Your political beliefs now in question because you now know how the media manipulates with everything it publishes because of being agenda driven and a money-making machine for its advertisers.

Now understaning that you're one to believe the constant barrage of misinformation perpetuated by the media without question, one that is easily manipulated, I wouldn't seek your company for any reason. Good on you for thinking positive about that possiblity, though.