Statistics are an especially squishy zone for distorting facts. You can create a deceptive view of reality all while being completely factual. With a little article complete with graphs, the BBC has analyzed some of the changes in the US since the "events" of 9/11. I think their section on "Hate Crimes" is a perfect illustration of the deceptive view which I will illustrate with some facts of my own.

Here's the BBC link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5305868.stm

Here's the Muslim Hate Crime graph:

Reports of Muslims being targeted because of their religion was virtually unheard of before 9/11, hovering at around 30 incidents a year. After spiking in 2001, incidents have levelled off at about 150 a year (2005 figures are not yet available).*

But..

More illuminating facts. What is a hate crime as defined by the keeper of such stats, the FBI.

All of which tells me that the BBC version is attempting to inflate the story of Anti-Muslim Hate within the USA to distort the overall true picture. Why have one out of five of their "What Happened After 9/11?" graphs on Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes as if that were a worrisome develpment??? You tell me, BBC supporters!  Factual?  Sure.  Relevant?  I think not.  Indicative of a 'long-term trend?'  Rubbish!

Don't forget -- this is the headline of their article:

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I can't believe you went through all that trouble!  Did you lift that off a blog or type that out yourself?

Anyways, yeah, good point about statistics, and also about that particular graph.

The BBC employee most likely selected that statistic as it seemed topical, since seemingly at least half of all news headlines these days seem to involve Muslims, and the media as a whole is obsessed with mentioning them as often as possible.

The BBC has their policy of trying to avoid bias, and it is surely more stringent than almost any other organisation. 

It is wrong to accuse the BBC of a corporation-wide pro-Muslim bias.  Some Muslims, equally rabid about the topics du jour complain about anti-Muslim bias from the BBC.  Ian Paisley complains of anti-Loyalist bias.  Gerry Adams complains of anti-republican bias.  Labour spin doctors complain of anti-Blairite bias, Conservative spin doctors moan about anti-Tory bias.  The Lib Dems complain that they don't get enough air time full stop.  If they have a new drama on BBC1 about black families living in a council estate they are portraying negative stereotypes, if they don't they are ignoring that minority group and being socially exclusive to that group.  If they gave you a glass of water you'd accuse them of being condescending, and if they didn't you accuse them of letting you die of thirst.

Leave it out.

Now the answers:

1. How insulting! No, I didn't lift it from anywhere. It's all me own work! This morning as I was reading and cross referencing stories from BBC, Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post (my usual triad of competing news sources online) I happened on this front page story. The graph struck me as misleading, so I did my own fact checking by going to the horse's mouth -- the FBI home page. Anyone could do so but maybe the article didn't inspire enough interest. For me it did, because it seemed certain to elicit a Hero-retort.

Oh, glad you agree on that one graph.

2. Yeah, I understand how it happens that both sides accuse a news outlet of favoring the other. While it may be "an individual BBC employee" there is a reason BBC is periodically banned from Israel, for one. Have they ever been banned by the Palestinians? Not sure about that. Sure Muslim groups will accuse some of "Islamaphobia" too. Somewhere there is an overall generalization that can be fairly made about the Beeb's objectivity in 21st century news coverage, though as sufferers of 'eraism' we are all too close to properly judge, I suppose.

But I was not accusing them of "pro-Muslim" bias, either. Though I'd say the BBC tends to be more in lockstep with any random Palestinian over any random Israeli, I don't think they are across the board "pro-Muslim." Pro-perceived underdog, maybe.

I think it's more a case of anti-American bias or more specifically, anti-Bush administration bias. Deny that, will you?! The reason this graph was drawn up was to demonstrate how the hateful right wing sheeple would attack poor innocent Muslims under the leadership of a racist like Bush.

More than anything, I think this 5 graph story was more useless than anything else. There is a story to tell about what changes have taken place post-9/11 America. But presidential polls, how many people fly commercially, hate crimes, or how many articles mention Bin Laden are not the major story in my opinion. There will be volumes written on the subject of the havoc wreaked by that September day's attack. Some day. For now I'd describe those changes as revolving around a collective sense of being afloat, unsettled, shaken, suckerpunched and stunned, eager to strike back, with no voices of wisdom to adequately lay out a plan for America's future. I'd say that this in turn has led to a myriad of conspiracy theories, second guessing, partisan bickering, short-sightedness, finger pointing, distractions, all coated with a cloud of potential future gloom. This is not something Americans are accustomed to and five years later we have yet to fully grasp, nor even agree upon, the meaning of what happened nor the full extent of the threat.

As long as critiquing the media remains a popular parlor game among the riff-raff, I'll be playing.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

As a publicly-funded and non-private sector public-service organisation, I find it very likely that a significant majority of the BBC's executive and journalistic staff consider themselves to be standing somewhere to the left of centre.  This will suggest that there may be an anti-Bush feeling inside Broadcasting House which would occasionally find its way into the reporting of news as a noticeable bias.

Pro-underdog?  Well, yes, every night from 7:00 I can listen to non-chart music from every conceivable genre of music from bands on tiny home-made labels and even unsigned bands.  Where else I could indulge my obsession for new music which sits outside the narrow constraints of commercial radio, TV and record labels, I really don't know.

I feel that they are a wonderful, usually reliable and incredibly valuable organisation.

Hey, look what I found today!  Evidence of BBC objectivity.  It's worthy of noting.  Have to laugh at that last disclaimer line of the article though and wonder why "our correspondent" was unnamed.  Could it be that in spite of Sudan's flexibility, our correspondent still fears for his head?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Is it not Jonah Fisher?

Is our disagreement on these things due to you not reading things properly? 

Got me on that one, Andrew!  Let's go after his head!  I plead too many weeks of sub-Saharan heat.

Funny you would say 'our disagreement' though when I pointed out this article was "Evidence of BBC objectivity."

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Just feelin' cantankerous.