I really despise the press

Let me show you another example of how biased and dishonest our world press is:

Go to Google news and search for “Afghanistan children killed”. You will get thousands (literally) of results and headlines like “AFGHANISTAN: CHILDREN KILLED IN US-LED COALITION AIR STRIKE”.

Now search for “Gaza children killed”. You will get a hand full of articles that talks about this. And guess what? Most of them blame the deaths on Israel!

Look for pictures. The killing of Palestinian people (by Palestinian people) has been going on for more than a week, but I have not found one picture of it. The Afghan bombing was yesterday and yet you can find plenty of very (very) graphical pictures of dead children.

Oh and by the way, the Afghan bombing was targeting Al-Qaida. The Palestinian conflict is targeting… Palestinians. The US used bombs against Al-Qaida for all the known reasons. Bombs are not 100% accurate so collateral damage happens. When Hamas attacks Fatah they use small weapons. They kill children because they intend to.

I wonder how this crazy morality scale has taken over the “free” press. I am not a conspiracy guy and much less in favor of censorship, but maybe there is some kind of underlining battle that is being lost here that people just don’t know about.

It makes me sick.

Irony all around

The last few days have been filled with a beautiful blend of ironic headlines:

Carter: Bush’s foreign policy is ‘worst in history’
Next thing you know he will be calling Bush’s economic policy a failure.

Wanted: A new Truman
Newsweek wants a new Truman??? Are we talking about the President who dropped the big ones, fought the Korean War and that has the all time lowest approval rate for a President (23%)? Just to put in perspective, at this same time (May 1951) in Truman’s presidency his approval rate was 24% compared to Bush’s current 34%. This is the grand-daddy of ironies. I’ve said long ago that Bush is very similar to Truman, for all the good and bad reasons. I just hope to live enough to see 40 years from now “Wanted: A new Bush”.

That of course, just adds up to the irony that the anti-war democrat congress has currently an approval rate of 29%.

Another interesting bit of political irony is that most critics of Bush’s immigration plan are from the right. You would not believe the deluge of criticism coming from talk radio about this (one big and much welcome exception is the great Medved). The media of course downplays all of that, and continue to say that Bush is divisive even within his own party.

You just can’t win with these people.

Jonathan Rauch

This is a great interview with Jonathan Rauch. He is what I would call "my type of journalist". Here is why:

"reason: Who are some of the villains in journalism for you?

Rauch: Well, if you'll take this not in the personal sense that there's anything wrong with the people, but if you take this in a sense of having played a counterproductive role, I think I'd say Maureen Dowd.

reason: In what way?

Rauch: I'm not a fan of the idea that the journalist and the journalist's attitude should be front and center. I think that a good journalist's duty is to get out of the way. The hardest thing about journalism--the hardest thing, a much higher art than being clever--is just to get out of the way, to show the leader of the world as the reader would see it if the reader were there. Just to be eyes and ears. Calvin Trillin, another writer I greatly admired who steered me towards journalism, once said that getting himself out of his stories was like taking off a very tight shirt in a very small phone booth. He's right.

I think Maureen Dowd is very good at what she does. But the problem is that lots of people who aren't any good at it think this is journalism. It's what we should all be doing, showing off our attitude. I think that sets a bad example. The blogosphere tends to further the [notion] that journalism is about opinion and not about fact. I think that's wrong.

Most people think they know truth and think that what they know is right. They're usually wrong. Journalists are among the few people in society who are actually paid to try go out and learn things. Checking is the core of what we do. David Broder once said that the old slogan in journalism is, "If your mother says she loves you, check it."

The article is long but it's worth reading all of it. Also, check this one out:
The Convenient Truth

MR and bias

"I would like for my posts on MR to be one small space where these necessary but ignoble human tendencies toward personalization are resisted and sometimes even criticized. I am biased, just as you are. But for aesthetic reasons I would rather my biases be played out in the realm of ideas, rather than directed at people. And at the margin, some of you should be just a little more like me."

One of the reasons why MR is my favorite blog.

Polls Together, Polls Apart

Look at these two recent polls:

USA Today and CNN:
Most Iraqis live in fear of violence 4 years after invasion

The Sunday Times:
Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

The differences are striking. The USA Today poll focus strictly on bad news (it never mentions that a majority still thinks that life today is better than under Saddam). The Sunday Times is much fairer, even though it could have been more direct.

Which one do you think will get more exposure?

According to a BBC poll, it is easy to guess:

- 60% believed the US and UK were not right to invade Iraq exactly four years ago.
- In contrast, 57% of people would back British military action overseas if it was to assist disaster relief or stop genocide.

Do these people think the Iraqis did not need relief? Or do they think Saddam was not a genocidal dictator?

If even with the current mess in Iraq 49% of Iraqis still think life now is better than before, can you imagine how bad life was before?

Or maybe they think that there is a magic way to remove these guys from power! Every single time I hear people calling for something to be done in Darfur, I imagine what exactly they think would happen. Would R.E.M. be ok with invading Sudan? Would they ask for a timeline? How many US soldiers would we be willing to have killed? Do they remember at all what Mogadishu was about?

Am I really asking for too much here?

Talking about bias

This editorial from Robert Kagan is just outstanding. That first paragraph is an instant classic.

"The 'Surge' Is Succeeding

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07

A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.


Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.

As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.

Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."

A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."

Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."

It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.

There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.

No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?"

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy.

The different types of bias

This latest brouhaha between me and Mr. Hermesmart made me think about a subject I don’t think I wrote about before: the difference between personal bias and news bias.

First of all, I don't think personal bias is something one should be ashamed of. I believe everyone without exception has some kind of bias about any possible subject. Even (maybe especially) about the ones they know absolutely nothing about.

Taking personal beliefs and experiences into account when analyzing an issue is not bad. It’s part of our freedom of choice and speech. It is also a way to bring discussions to a more realistic way. Using stone cold logic in every aspect of your life is just impractical.

It probably comes down to a matter of degree. If your biases don’t prevent you from at least considering the chance that you are wrong, you are probably ok.

The situation is completely different with press bias. More specifically, with news reporting bias.

News reporting is not (or should not be) subject to personal interference. In many ways, I think of the news as an exact science: it is based on hard facts. Reporters describe what they saw or heard. There is no middle ground here. Either something is there or is not. Your contribution to the job is to be precise and eloquent so others can understand exactly what has happened. That is it.

What people do with the news is completely out of scope. Some ignore it, some write editorials about it, it really shouldn’t matter to an honest reporter.

Nowadays, the news media in the US and around the world is a disgrace (with very few exceptions). And I don't say that recklessly. I really believe that it is one of the worst aspects of our current society. It somehow got morphed into this “social animal" that tries to mold reality to fit into their vision of what the world should be.

I am not the only one to think that. This recent Zogby poll shows that 83% of American voters believe that the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides. Nearly two-thirds of those who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches.

This creates all kinds of problems. First, it skews public choice based on the preferences of a few. Second, it makes people biased without them really knowing about it: they based their opinions in distorted facts.

Third, and worst of all, it makes people behave in more extreme ways. For instance, I spend a lot of time “defending” President Bush just because there is so much crap going around about him that I just can’t stand it. That in turn gives the wrong impression that I am a huge fan of his, because I have no time (or motivation) to write about the things I believe he is doing wrong.

It is a vicious cycle all around. And that is why I honestly hate the news press so much, and that is why I think it is the most dishonest and damaging institution in the US currently.

Very true

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth ... persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often, we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

-- John F. Kennedy

Bias in many forms - Amazon style

This is an interesting one. I was browsing around Amazon and noticed that the only editorial review for Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is the following:

"As an interesting relic of the past, this outlandish piece of propaganda is worth the listener's time, even though the author's overconfident sense of her own rightness and persistence at pressing her points with little respect for opposing views can quickly become more than a little annoying. Using outdated words such as "altruists" to represent the forces of evil who would overburden the poor, beleaguered American business community, Rand "protesteth" far too much. Americans have seen many of the abuses come to pass that Rand, writing in 1946, claimed would never happen if free enterprise were just left to its own devices, so many of her arguments will be lost on a modern listener. For instance, the antitrust laws forced railroad barons to use illegal payoffs to forge ahead with expansion, and they shouldn't, therefore, be blamed the antitrust laws are the real problem. Narrator Anna Field's cold, crisp voice is actually well suited to such a heartless piece as this. Recommended. Mark Pumphrey, Polk Cty. P.L., Columbus, NC”

Honestly, I have never seen this before. The only endorsed opinion available is bashing the book they are supposedly trying to sell! Compare it to the Amazon Editorial for this grandiose piece of garbage:

“Noam Chomsky is considered the father of modern linguistics. In this richly detailed criticism of American foreign policy, he seeks to redefine many of the terms commonly used in the ongoing American war on terrorism. Surveying U.S. actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Far East and elsewhere over the past half a century along with the modern American war in Iraq, Chomsky indicates that America is just as much a terrorist state as any other government or rogue organization. George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq drew worldwide criticism, in part because it seemed to present a new philosophy of pre-emptive war and an appearance of global empire building. But according to Chomsky, such has been the operating philosophy of American foreign policy for decades. Opponents of the Bush administration's tactics consistently point out how the American government supported Saddam Hussein for many years prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand are easy to come by) as a means of pointing out how the United States is happy to fund despots when it's in American interests. But Chomsky, armed with extensive historical notation, takes this notion further, arguing how the repression of other nations' citizenry is, in fact, the very reason Americans support certain foreign leaders. The charges made throughout the book are severe, as are the dire consequences he posits if current trends are not reversed, and Chomsky is no more likely to make friends or gain supporters from the mainstream now than he's ever been. But Hegemony or Survival is relatively dispassionate. Instead of relying on camp or shock value or personal attacks as some of his contemporaries have done, Chomsky drives his well-supported points steadily forward in an earnest and highly readable style. --John Moe”

Pretty amazing.

Economic bias

The most irritating press bias for me (and there are many) is the economic.

Yesterday's job growth report is a classic example. Take this ABC News piece: Notice the difference between the way they report bad news (“That's the lowest level since the October 2005 post-Katrina report and well below the 125,000 consensus estimate of economists.”) and good news (“The nation's unemployment rate — the result of a different, but simultaneously released survey — showed a slight improvement during September, ticking down one-tenth of a percent to 4.6 percent. Realistically, this is nothing more than a statistically insignificant wobble in the number.”).

You have to dig around to get a nicer (and more realistic) view of yesterday’s data. Looking at one such report (WP article) you will find out that:
- The Labor Department said payrolls for the 12 months that ended in March 2006 will be revised upwards by a whopping 810,000 jobs, the biggest revision since 1991.
- The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in September from 4.7 percent in August, which was down from 4.8 percent in July. The jobless rate has varied from 4.6 to 4.8 percent all year. Considering that a few workers have such poor skills as to be nearly unemployable, many economists consider a rate below 5 percent to constitute full employment, meaning just about every worker with the skills and desire to work can find a job.
- 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003
- Demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month. That's a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years.

Now, if you are really ‘lucky’, you will find other reports like this WSJ editorial. Then you will learn that:
- The federal budget deficit estimate for the fiscal year 2006, which ended Sept. 30, has dropped to $260 billion from $319 billion deficit recorded in fiscal 2005 (approximately 21% decrease).
- The deficit is now about 2% of our $13 trillion economy, well below the 2.7% average of the last 40 years. Most states and localities are also afloat in tax collections, and including their revenue surpluses brings the total U.S. public sector borrowing down to roughly 1.5% of GDP
- The main cause of this decline -- 90% of it -- is a tidal wave of tax revenue. Tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years, the largest two-year revenue increase -- even after adjusting for inflation -- in American history. (Tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!)
- Tax collections from Corporations have climbed by 76% over the past two years. Personal income tax payments are up by 30.3% since 2004 too, despite the fact that the highest tax rate is down to 35% from 39.6%. The IRS tax-return data just released last month indicates that a near-record 37% of those income tax payments are received from the top 1% of earners.

Want more? Here it goes:
- Inflation is low
- Dow at all time high, up 9.1% this year
- Crude oil prices have dropped about 20 percent since late July, from $75 a barrel to $60 a barrel. Gasoline prices have dropped 60 cents a gallon since last month (around 20%)

It goes on and on. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is right: the only way to get good economic news from the press is to elect a democrat.

Bias, debate and democracy

It is ironic that by turning off the comments on posts I am going against Ayn Rand’s quote I have on the side bar.

I still like debating ideas. I still think that challenging your beliefs is an important part of being informed.

However, I am starting to realize that blogs (in it’s current state at least) are not the greatest tool to accomplish this.

Take the discussions I have with Mr. Smart. They all follow the same pattern: From focused disagreement to a all over the place shootout. A lot of “I didn’t mean that” or “You are putting words in my mouth” kind of rhetoric.

I don’t blame him exclusively. It is difficult to keep track of a multi threaded discussion in this format. It doesn’t help that most of the times I am writing and doing 2 or 3 other things at the same time.

Maybe this dynamic only works for government employees or college professors (ok, that was a cheap shot).

--- x ---

Still talking about debating different point of views, my favorite blog has a nice post about bias (it is also worth to read the Jane Galt link).

I think there is a thin line between following your beliefs and being blindly biased (what Tyler calls procedural bias). Most of the issues are based on facts but have a heavy analytical component. Making value judgments is not black and white.

I think the easiest way to find bias is to look for exaggerations. Any time someone says something really extreme (Bush is a Nazi, Guantanamo is a vacation club) you know that you are not dealing with a person who takes the opponent arguments seriously.

--- x ---

One of the reasons I still believe in people being stronger than their biases is the success of democracy. I mean, you could never have a country like the US, which alternates between conservative and liberal in short and constant periods of time if people were really that closed minded.

The fringes get more attention because they are entertaining. But that’s only because they represent a vision not shared by the majority.

Histoganda

Falando sobre diversidade ideológica, continuo me surpreendendo com a falta da mesma no Brasil.

Ando lendo sobre a história americana, e no meio da indignação com a minha ignorância, resolvi tentar achar textos em português sobre o assunto. Achei esse, da editora Abril.

Na superfície não parece um texto tão ruim... mas é.

Como é que se pode contar histórias sobre "cobertores com sarampo" sem falar sobre scalping ou as torturas sofridas pelos jesuitas? Como querer falar da seven year war sem explicar que na América a guerra era chamada (por motivos óbvios) de French and Indian War?

Contem o número de vezes que a palavra império é usada (apesar de que no fim eles fazem uma mea culpa). Pior, eles usam referências como o super-ultra-loony Ward Churchill, aquele que chamou as vítimas do 9/11 de "little Eichmanns."

Eu sei que eu pareco disco quebrado, mas é dificil engolir essas coisas. Se alguém tiver um exemplo de um texto em português mais justo, é so falar.

What is Left? What is Right?

Um dos aspectos mais interessantes aqui dos EUA é a diversidade ideológica. Muito além dos dois partidos e suas subdivisões, existe uma quantidade enorme de grupos e tendências que influem não somente o governo mas também o mundo privado.

Vejam essa coleção de textos da American Conservative (via ASS). Você acha de tudo. Desde o pessoal que acha a globalização é algo de esquerda, aos que acham que o esquerdismo econômico simplesmente acabou.

Na minha opinião, tentar agrupar essas várias correntes entre direita e esquerda é quase impossível. Concordo com o John Derbyshire, que diz que essas definições macro são no máximo useful as a first approximation. Mas só.

No fim das contas, essa variedade acaba promovendo ainda mais variedade. Eu por exemplo, não acho que me encaixo 100% em nenhuma das opiniões apresentadas nesses artigos. Pelo contrário, acho que alguns desses textos são tão absurdos quanto qualquer post do Blog do Emir.

I love it.

Mais um exemplo do lixo

Número de notícias sobre o Mel Gibson dirigindo bêbado e falando mal de judeus:

(Aprox. 4450)

Número de notícias sobre o louco muçulmano que atirou em 6 mulheres (matando uma) no Seattle Jewish Center:

(Aprox. 3500)

Agora, isso não leva em consideração a cobertura de TV, a proeminência dessas notícias nos jornais, etc. Não existe a mínima dúvida sobre qual teve mais atenção. E isso só conta o que foi publicado em inglês. Vocês ai no Brasil ouviram sobre alguma das duas? Qual teve mais destaque?

O que leva a esse lixo? Culpa da imprensa? Culpa da ignorância do povo? Qual é a causa e qual é a consequência?

Preferences vs discrimination

"One thing I have never had adequately explained to me by devotees of the anti-discrimination cult is whether paying customers should also be prevented from discriminating in their consumption preferences. Given that the relationship between an employer and an employee is simply a form of trade in services in return for money, it strikes me as rather peculiar that ALL forms of discrimination in trade are not outlawed consistently. For example, if I decline to purchase the services of a tradesman to fix my house (the exact same nature of transaction as if I were an "employer") because he happens to be Uzbek, should he have the right to legal redress against me as a "discriminating" customer?

Moreover, we also seem to be "discriminating" in the application of "anti-discrimination laws" in the workplace - employees are also parties to an agreement to trade services for money, so how come they are accorded no official opprobrium if they decline to sign a contract with, say, a Muslim employer? In short, anti-discrimination laws are an attempt to outlaw the motives of the purchasing party to an agreed trade, but only if they happen to own a shop!

The real principle that is being attacked here is "freedom of association" and private conscience. Consistently applied (i.e. in a non-discriminatory fashion), anti-discrimination laws have the effect of criminalising voluntary trade between consenting parties, while obliging them to trade with others on some arbitrary criteria, and even criminalising consumer preferences themselves. Forcing somebody to trade with someone else against their will is ethically indistinguishable from holding a knife to a tourist's throat in a crowded market and demanding they "pay" for your worthless merchandise (as is known to happen in some parts of SE Asia) - and it is long past due that the ideological hogwash known as "anti-discrimination" is struck from the statute books permanently.

So to conclude this short post, I most certainly do discriminate in my economic and social preferences, on all kinds of verboten grounds (including race, religion and sex), and there isn't a damn thing that any sanctimonious blowhard can do about it."

Mais aqui.

O bias da imprensa americana

A universidade de Columbia lancou um estudo chamado The State of the News Media 2006.

O material é grande e interessante, mas a parte mais chamou minha atenção foi uma pesquisa com jornalistas. Vejam os resultados:





"The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative)."

--x--

Em outra pesquisa, essa da CBS, os americanos (a favor e contra o Bush) deixaram bem claro como não confiam na imprensa:

"24% of respondents felt the media were "making things in Iraq sound better than they really are," 31% felt the media were making things sound "worse than they really are," and 35% felt the media were "describing the situation in Iraq accurately." (10% did not give an answer.)"

"To better understand these results, it's worth looking at the party breakdown of the responses. Among Republicans, perhaps unsurprisingly, only 8% thought the media were making things in Iraq sound better than they really are, whereas 57% thought the media were making things sound worse than they really are. 30% of Democrats, meanwhile, thought the media were making things sound better than they really are, and only 14% thought they were making things sound worse than they really are. (Democrats, incidentally, seem to have the most faith in the media, with 43% saying that the media were describing the situation in Iraq accurately. Only 30% of Republicans said the same.)"

Escola públicas e a liberdade de expressão

Eu já tinha escrito sobre o problema das universidades públicas e professores malucos. Essa semana, uma notícia mostrou que o problema é mais generalizado: uma gravação feita por um aluno, mostra o professor Jay Bennish, professor da Overland High School em Aurora, Colorado, num clássico exemplo de discurso político para os seus alunos do 10th grade (segundo colegial). A aula deveria ser de geografia, mas o tal Jay discursou sobre como os EUA podem ser comparados com a Alemanha nazista, como capitalismo é um sistema cruel e desumano, como Cuba é um país vítima, e por ai vai. A classic loon.

A gravação inteira pode ser ouvida aqui.

O professor foi suspenso, e agora vai processar a escola por "quebra da liberdade de expressão". O aluno que gravou a aula está sofrendo tanta pressão que vai ter que mudar. Uma lose-lose situation.

O problema aqui é claro. Numa escola pública, aonde todos alunos são forçados a aprender tudo de uma fonte única (já que poucas familias podem pagar os impostos e a mensalidade de uma escola particular) a única forma de ser justo com todos é fazer o material de ensino factual e apolítico.

Mas será possível ensinar como o mundo funciona sem demonstrar o que se acha certo e errado? Pior, será que essa é a melhor maneira de se educar crianças?

Se estivessemos falando de uma escola particular, o problema seria bem menos complicado. A escola teria que escolher entre despedir o professor, ou perder os alunos filhos de pais que discordassem do professor. Teriamos certas escolas mais para um lado, e outras para o outro. Pais poderiam mudar filhos de escola facilmente, e professores poderiam escolher aonde procurar emprego.

Problemas como esse do professor lefty, e outros como o do professor transexual, mostram que a idéia de uma escola pública não é compatível com a liberdade de expressão e a liberdade de escolha individual.

Aonde é que isto vai parar?

Bad News Media

É considerado normal que a mídia seja atraída por notícias negativas. "Boas notícias não vendem jornal", como diz o ditado.

Seria essa uma questão de demanda ou uma certa limitação da oferta?

A situação atual da economia americana é um prato cheio para a análise desse problema:

Durante a campanha presidencial de 2004, quando a retórica política andava a toda, a porcentagem do povo americano que acreditava que o país estava em recessão era de 36%. Agora, um ano depois, com um PIB 3.7% maior e com o desemprego caindo de 5.5% para 5%, a porcentagem subiu para 43%.

E não é difícil entender porque tanta gente acredita nisso. Nos jornais, na TV, qualquer notícia é transformada em algo negativo.

Essa semana foi divulgado que a economia cresceu 4.3% (anual) de Julho até Setembro. 215 mil empregos foram criados em Novembro, e os gastos dos consumidores, que contam por 70% da economia, aumentaram também 4.2% na taxa anual. A taxa de desemprego continua em 5%. O preço da gasolina continua caindo.

Mas se você for no Google News e buscar por economia, a primeira que aparece é "Fed Chief Sees Risks for Global Economy".

Abra a seção de Business do NYT: Acima da reportagem sobre o aumento de empregos, estão headlines para "Sales of Impotence Drugs Fall, Defying Expectations e "Are Lawyers Being Overbilled for Their Test Preparation?".

Atualmente um número recorde de 69.2% dos americanos tem casa própria, mas tente procurar por noticias sobre "Home Ownership" e o resultado é deprimente.

Será que esse negativismo é algo natural ao ser humano? Ou será que existe um componente político/ideológico nesse tipo de situação?

O papel da imprensa

No meio da confusão no final do jogo Santos x Corinthians, um bando de repórters tentava desesperadamente furar o cerco de policiais e entrevistar o árbitro Cléber Wellington Abade (que estava quase sendo linchado pela torcida). Quando o coitado do Abade começou a gritar que esses jornalistas estavam prejudicando ainda mais o jogo, o comentarista da Jovem Pan soltou a pérola: "Ah, agora tudo é culpa da imprensa!"

Acordei hoje curioso para saber como foi a votação da constituição iraquiana, e achei as seguintes notícias: "Iraque registra confusão e mortes durante referendo" e "Iraqis Vote on Constitution". A primeira fala que a votação foi um caos. A segunda, que foi um dia muito mais tranquilo que o de costume, e com uma participação muito maior do que era esperado.

A era de news 24/7 gerou (ou acentuou) uma artificialidade e parcialidade que deixa os noticiários cada vez mais parecidos com shows de auditório. Adicione a isso um enorme complexo de "responsabilidade social", e você acaba com um essa imprensa que só noticia o que interessa, de maneira espalhafatosa, e ainda se acha coitadinha.

Devem existir estatutos, recomendações e juramentos que esses jornalistas prometeram seguir, mas a realidade é que ninguem segue regra nenhuma. Se eu fosse Rei por um dia, estabeleceria 3 princípios para qualquer jornalista: Objetividade, imparcialidade e responsabilidade. E mais, estabeleceria a distinção entre a carreira de jornalista e de editorialista. Um não poderia dar opinião subjetiva, e o outro não poderia querer relatar fatos. Cada um com seu curso superior, cada um com seus poderes e limites. Os jornais teriam que diferenciar claramente um do outro, e se responsabilizar por erros. Aliás, era assim que as coisas funcionavam há um tempo atrás.

Claro que tudo isso é somente um desabafo. Não existe solução para o problema. Qualquer tipo de controle só criaria mais problemas, já que qualquer governo usaria qualquer tipo de controle a seu próprio favor.

Quem sabe a internet, com seu poder de disseminação e descentralização, conseguirá ao menos diminuir um pouco o problema. Com mais fontes, e um poder de informação mais distribuido, talvez as chances de se conseguir um relato correto aumentem.

Ou talvez a diversidade de interesses, bias e backgrounds crie um caos maior ainda.

Who knows.

Por onde anda o bom senso?

Sexta, 2 de Abril, 2004

  Por onde anda o bom senso?

É difícil saber atualmente o que é jornalismo sério e o que não é.

Vejam essa revista Carta Capital. Concordo que não é fácil para mim analisar uma revista que tem uma orientação tão diferente da minha, mas certos pontos devem ser independentes. Para começar, somente analisando as últimas capas dessa revista ("O apocalipse bate à porta", "Os EUA grampearam a Alvorada", "A lista dos espiões americanos no Brasil") uma pessoa de bom senso já saberia que a linha deles é um tanto sensacionalista. E como qualquer mídia desse tipo, o objetivo principal não é somente informar, mas sim chocar. E provavelmente ai está a raíz do problema.

Bom exemplo é essa entrevista com Carlos Costa, o suposto "chefe do FBI no Brasil por quatro anos". Obviamente, é impossível saber se o que esse cara disse é verdade ou não. Nenhum outro jornal ou revista de credibilidade falou com essa pessoa, não tem como se ter um parâmetro.

Agora, deixando tudo isso de lado, analisem certos pontos dessa entrevista:

- Primeiro ponto, o tal Carlos diz que "A Polícia Federal brasileira foi comprada pelos EUA". Ok, e quais sao os fatos fornecidos para confirmar tal história? Ele diz que "No ano passado, a DEA doou uns US$ 5 milhões, a NAS (divisão de narcóticos do departamento de Estado), também narcóticos, uns US$ 3 milhões, fora todos os outros." Nomes dos envolvidos? Nenhum. Nem dos americanos envolvidos, nem dos brasileiros envolvidos, nada.

- Segundo, ele diz que "Os EUA manipulam e compram jornalistas da imprensa brasileira". Foi aqui que dei minha primeira risada, e o resto de seriedade da entrevista se perdeu para mim. Será que esse cara confundiu Brasil com Colômbia? Será que ele já deu uma olhada nos jornais brasileiros ultimamente? Eu sempre peço para meus amigos de esquerda que chegam com esse papo que me citem só alguns, digamos 3 ou 4 jornalistas pró-EUA que escrevam para nossos grandes jornais ou revistas. Tirando o Olávo de Carvalho, que não é jornalista e sim analista, eu não sei de ninguém que tenha por exemplo apoiado a guerra no Iraque. E se realmente existe esse esquema elaborado de viagens pagas para os EUA, acredito que seria muito fácil provar o envolvimento desses jornalistas, não é mesmo?

Mas novamente esse Carlos não cita nome nenhum.

Aliás, é interessante parar e pensar o seguinte: Esse cara critica os EUA do começo ao fim, nos mais diversos aspectos, desde as informações sobre o Iraque até a economia,
pintando uma imagem de um governo americano terrível. Então, se o governo dos EUA é essa máfia, essa entrevista foi um grande risco que ele assumiu, correto? Porém, mesmo depois de desafiar os super-poderosos americanos, ele não quis arriscar seus 'contatos brasileiros' e fornecer um nome sequer que pudesse confirmar suas acusações ou não?

Algumas pessoas vão logo achar que eu "não quero acreditar nesse tipo de coisa" (afinal, eu sou o "eterno defensor dos EUA" para esse pessoal). Mas não é nada disso. O que eu quero é que se faça algo concreto. Se existe essa rede de corrupção e manipulação no Brasil atual, quero mais é que os responsáveis brasileiros e americanos sejam punidos da forma mais dura possível. Mas o negócio tem que ser sério. Sair por ai falando tudo isso sem o mínimo de provas, é nada mais que uma fofoca disfarçada de jornalismo.

E os artigos continuam nessa linha, levaria horas e horas analisando inconsistências como essas. Vejam bem, não estou dizendo que tudo que é escrito nessa matéria ou nessa revista é mentira. Não duvido nada que o mundo possa acabar, que os EUA tenham agentes em sua embaixada brasileira, e mesmo que os telefones de Lula tenham sido grampeados. O problema são as inferências, as enormes redes conspiratórias que se desenrolam, invariavelmente sem provas, e que no máximo são baseadas em extrapolações duvidosas.

E o pior de tudo é que esse tipo de informação se alastra como fogo. Recebi vários emails com links para essas matérias, como se estivessem me mostrando uma descoberta fantástica. Lógico que o problema é que essas pessoas somente leram o que queriam ler, e o prazer por alguém ter escrito aquilo é muito maior do que qualquer vontade de analisar o que realmente foi ou não foi dito ali.