I'm the discrediter
One thing that's regularly observed about this administration is that they never stop running for office. Whether it's a policy address, the State of the Union, whatever-- it's always delivered like a sales pitch, focus-group tested, fact-free, and always in the service of ideology. It's like seeing the White House run by the team that gives us Fox News hosts, which is depressing. Or maybe the depressing part is that-- like the 'fair and balanced' set-- they can put forth arguments so easily demolished but keep getting away with it.
In his press conference a week ago, President Bush dismissed the results of a Johns Hopkins/MIT study on Iraqi casualties since the invasion as "not credible" and indicated that the methodology had been "pretty much discredited." This response apparently was an attempt to quash a report that estimated approximately 601,027 Iraqi casualties, more than 20 times that reported by the administration.
It was clear from the press conference, however, that Bush had not read the mortality study, does not understand basic statistical concepts and is counting on the general public's misperception of those concepts to influence the response to the study.
Far from being "not credible," the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins/MIT study meets all professional standards. It is widely accepted among researchers; by such top-tier journals as The Lancet, which published it; and by politicians of any party -- when they choose to use the same methods to influence the public. (. . .)
The Gallup, Zogby and comparable professional opinion polls routinely carried out in the United States use a small sample -- about 1,000 people on average -- to estimate the various opinions held by people in the United States, about 300 million in total. The Iraq study used over 12,000 people (more than 1,800 families) to estimate a mortality rate across Iraq, which has a significantly smaller population relative to the United States.
In his press conference a week ago, President Bush dismissed the results of a Johns Hopkins/MIT study on Iraqi casualties since the invasion as "not credible" and indicated that the methodology had been "pretty much discredited." This response apparently was an attempt to quash a report that estimated approximately 601,027 Iraqi casualties, more than 20 times that reported by the administration.
It was clear from the press conference, however, that Bush had not read the mortality study, does not understand basic statistical concepts and is counting on the general public's misperception of those concepts to influence the response to the study.
Far from being "not credible," the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins/MIT study meets all professional standards. It is widely accepted among researchers; by such top-tier journals as The Lancet, which published it; and by politicians of any party -- when they choose to use the same methods to influence the public. (. . .)
The Gallup, Zogby and comparable professional opinion polls routinely carried out in the United States use a small sample -- about 1,000 people on average -- to estimate the various opinions held by people in the United States, about 300 million in total. The Iraq study used over 12,000 people (more than 1,800 families) to estimate a mortality rate across Iraq, which has a significantly smaller population relative to the United States.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 4:21 PM
<< Home