From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:14 A.M. EST

A Journalistic Miscarriage
Even though he is a New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof is an honest and generally sensible guy. He does, however, have an annoying tendency, one fairly common among liberals: He seems to think it's cute to cast America in a negative light. Yesterday this led him seriously astray. His lead was a grabber:

Here's a wrenching fact: If the U.S. had an infant mortality rate as good as Cuba's, we would save an additional 2,212 American babies a year.

Yes, Cuba's. Babies are less likely to survive in America, with a health care system that we think is the best in the world, than in impoverished and autocratic Cuba. According to the latest C.I.A. World Factbook, Cuba is one of 41 countries that have better infant mortality rates than the U.S.

Kristof goes on to note that the U.S. infant-mortality rate, which declined in every year from 1958 to 2001, went up in 2002, to 7 babies per 1,000 live births from 6.8 the previous year. "America's children are at greater risk than they've been in for at least a decade," Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health tells Kristof. The column closes with another comparison:

As readers know, I complain regularly about the Chinese government's brutality in imprisoning dissidents, Christians and, lately, Zhao Yan, a New York Times colleague in Beijing. Yet for all their ruthlessness, China's dictators have managed to drive down the infant mortality rate in Beijing to 4.6 per thousand; in contrast, New York City's rate is 6.5.

Blogger Edward Morrissey notes some problems with Kristof's claims. For one, since there are no figures yet for 2003 or 2004, there's no reason to assume that the increase from 2001 to 2002 is a trend rather than a blip. Indeed, CNN reported last February that the increase was "mainly because of complications associated with older women putting off motherhood and then having multiple babies via fertility drugs" and that based on preliminary data the Centers for Disease Control says "the U.S. rate for 2003 is expected to drop" (presumably final 2003 numbers will be out next month).

Kristof acknowledges this point, but spins it differently: "Sandy Smith of the Centers for Disease Control says that the statisticians are pretty sure there was not a further deterioration in 2003, but that it's too soon to know whether there was an improvement or just a leveling off at the higher rate." But in any case, a look at the CDC data suggests that Redlener's statement about children being at "greater risk than . . . for at least a decade," which Kristof reports uncritically, is bunk. The rate in 1995 was 7.6 per 1,000, and in 1990, 9.2 per 1,000.

Morrissey takes particular offense at Kristof's "cherry-picking" of Chinese data. The CIA World Factbook reports that China's nationwide rate is 25.28 deaths per thousand live births. "Perhaps the rate is better in Beijing, but it hardly matters if the rest of the country has that rate," Morrissey writes. "Kristof also leaves out another issue with China and its infants: its forced-abortion policy aimed at population control."

But if Brian Carnell is right, Kristof's conclusion is utterly false. Carnell writes:

The United States . . . has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality--the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams [14 ounces] and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive--and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent--that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

Medical statistics can be tricky: An excellent hospital may have a higher death rate than a mediocre one because of differences in the patient population, with the former treating much harder cases than the latter. That is what seems to have happened here: Kristof has alighted on a statistical artifact of American excellence and misconstrued it as a sign of America's shortcomings.

Why Can't Johnny Add?
Schoolkids in Newton, a Boston suburb, aren't measuring up in math tests, writes Tom Mountain in the Newton Tab. Thirty-two percent of sixth-graders are in the "warning" or "needs improvement" category in the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, and school officials are flummoxed:

The school department offered no tangible explanation for these declining scores other than to admit that they have no explanation, as articulated by Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Carolyn Wyatt (salary $106,804), "[The results] have decreased, incrementally, each year and continue to puzzle us." She went on to admit that this downward trend is peculiar to Newton and "is not being seen statewide." Again, she offered no explanation, but she did assure the School Committee that her assistant, Math Coordinator Mary Eich (salary $101,399), is currently investigating the problem.

But according to Mountain, it turns out that between 1999 and 2001, Newton adopted an "anti-racist multicultural math" curriculum:

In 2001 [Superintendent Jeffrey] Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, "Respect for Human Differences--students will live out the system wide core of 'Respect for Human Differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."

It continues, "Students will: Consistently analyze their experiences and the curriculum for bias and discrimination; Take effective anti-bias action when bias or discrimination is identified; Work with people of different backgrounds and tell how the experience affected them; Demonstrate how their membership in different groups has advantages and disadvantages that affect how they see the world and the way they are perceived by others . . ." It goes on and on.

"Nowhere among the first priorities for the math curriculum guidelines is the actual teaching of math," Mountain observes. "That's a distant second." It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out why Newton's kids are falling behind.

Zero-Tolerance Watch
Remember Chloe Smith? She's the Mustang, Okla., eighth-grader who was kicked out of school for forgetting to turn over her prescription medicine to the school office. School officials subsequently reduced her punishment to a five-day suspension, but now, the Associated Press reports, the punishment has been expunged from her records. It turns out the zero-tolerance policy the administrators cited when they expelled Chloe was a figment of their imagination:

"The school has been implementing a zero-tolerance policy, but doesn't have a zero-tolerance policy," ACLU attorney Tina Izadi said Tuesday.

School attorney Phyllis Walta said Tuesday the district has a policy that requires all prescription drugs to be checked in at the school office. "It has never been a zero-tolerance policy," Walta said. "Under the current policy, they (school administrators) have discretion."

Hat tip: ZeroIntelligence.net.

The Liberated Newsman
A hilarious take on the subject of media bias comes from Hugh Downs, formerly of ABC's "20/20," in an exchange on the CBS scandal with host Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country":

Scarborough: Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?

Downs: Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word liberal came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn't want to be thought of as merely liberal.

But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what's happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what's happening.

So you see, it's not that journalists are biased, it's just that they know more than everyone else and thus are "more liberated in their thought"! Don't you feel silly for thinking they were arrogant elitists?

The Media vs. the Democrats
Reader Tom Davis offers some interesting amplification of our item yesterday about what journalist Howard Fineman calls the American Mainstream Media Party or AMMP:

The descent of the U.S. media into liberal advocacy has been to the detriment of the country, notwithstanding the service done by it to the country during Watergate and--partially--Vietnam (partially because Vietnam was winnable prior to bad decisions made in Washington during the 1962-65 time frame, but probably not thereafter, but the media would never allow that position to be acknowledged). The biggest loss to the country has been the emasculation of the Democratic Party.

In large part due to the ideological congruence between the AMMP and the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party's main function has been subsumed by the AMMP. It is the AMMP that sets the liberal agenda, and the Democrats follow. It is the AMMP that makes the most effective challenges to conservatives, and the Democrats merely echo them. The AMMP is a much more effective shadow government than the Democrats are. As a result the Democrats have become vain, intellectually lazy and self-righteous. This dynamic is also visible in your item on Jill Lawrence's article the previous day.

And the AMMP still doesn't get it. When Dan Rather states that the media's role is to "speak truth to power," he overlooks the fact that the AMMP is a power. Cloaked in its mantle of pretend objectivity, the AMMP desires to influence governance for the common good as it alone sees it, and it really does. Voters like me not only repudiated the AMMP in 2004, but we consciously did so because a proper balance of power within government demands that the Republican Party be strengthened against the AMMP so that the two are roughly equal in influence. As long as the Democratic Party is favored by the AMMP, it must be relegated to the backbench, to be brought into play only when we face Republican incompetence or corruption.

This sounds mostly right to us, though we'd add that liberals' reliance on the courts to impose their agenda has also contributed to the degeneration of their skills at democratic persuasion. In any case, the decline of the liberal media may turn out to be a necessary condition for an eventual revival of the Democratic Party.

Band of Brothers
A group of civic leaders, including erstwhile presidential candidate Ross Perot, is holding a gathering in Branson, Mo., June 13-19, to honor Vietnam veterans. Here's a description from the event's Web site:

Thirty years have passed since the end of the Vietnam War. During those three decades, the brave men and women who served in that conflict have never been given the recognition they deserve for their heroic sacrifices in service to our country. Now, the time for that recognition has come. Welcome Home . . . America's Tribute to Vietnam Veterans will be the homecoming celebration they never received. . . .

Including veterans, their families and friends, 100,000 participants from across the country are expected to attend.

For Vietnam Veterans and their loved ones, and our nation, this celebration is profoundly important. By honoring those who answered their country's call during a difficult time in our nation's history, the legacy of duty, honor and country will be passed on to America's sons and daughters who will be called to serve in the future. It's an idea whose time has come.

How much do you want to bet John Kerry is a no-show?

Great Minds Think Alike--III
Still more variants of the Democratic National Committee's form letters against Social Security reform showing up in newspapers around the country (our first two installments were Friday and Monday):

Most of these papers presumably published these "letters" unknowingly, though some got wise and avoided it. From the Chico (Calif.) Enterprise Record:

We received a dozen or so letters assailing President Bush's Social Security proposal. They were penned, all or in part, by the Democratic National Committee and sent via e-mail, "signed" by local people. We won't run those, either, because they don't meet the originality criterion.

And from the Dallas Morning News (emphasis in original):

Here's your public service announcement: We do not publish form letters. (We don't publish poetry, either, and, based on what I've seen here, be glad about that.) The form letter question jumped up this week thanks to the Democratic National Committee, which is sponsoring a form letter (and helpful tips) about the Social Security debate. They start, "President Bush is endangering my retirement . . ." I'm seeing these words in my sleep. Look, it's nothing personal. If we receive 500 letters next week that start, "Nancy Pelosi is endangering my sanity," they won't publish, either. If you want to comment on Social Security, please write to us and say so. But write it yourself and send it just to us.

But the Santa Maria Times, which, as we noted above, published two versions of the form letter on the same day, actually defends doing so:

It is . . . fairly clear that many of these letters are the product of a letter-writing campaign spearheaded by one or more national groups that oppose the president's proposal. The words and phrasing of dozens of letters we've received are identical, too identical to be random and individual thoughts.

That's OK with us. We'll weed out some of the completely repetitive and redundant letters, in large part because they would take space away from readers whose letters are original. But we'll publish a few because this is an issue that strikes to the core of most senior citizens' lives, and one that will be debated for months to come.

Weirdly enough, though, the Times actually has two apparently original letters opposing Social Security reform on the same page with the phony DNC letters--though it has not one that supports the president's plan. If this is an issue that's going to be "debated for months to come," why not have an actual debate on the letters page?

Voting With Their Fetus
Jan. 22 is the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the far-left indybay.org site reports that pro-lifers are planning a demonstration in, of all places, San Francisco:

"Walk for Life West Coast," a city-wide anti-choice event, is also scheduled for that date. Last year, women nationwide celebrated the first "I'm not sorry I had an abortion day." Some pro-choice activists feel that it's time to do it again as one of the ways of countering the Walk for Life's messaging. Elizabeth Creely says, "it's clear that women (and men) who have had abortions need to continue to defend our right to reproduce on our own terms."

Men who have had abortions? These people really are reproducing on their own terms!

Mr. Excitable
Apparently there's a new book out that claims Abraham Lincoln was gay, contrary to the popular perception that he was a grave, serious man. No, actually, that's not it--the author means "gay" in the the contemporary sense of digging other dudes.

On this, we're with Glenn Reynolds: "The guy saved the nation, and I'm supposed to care about where he put his wing-wang?" But Andrew Sullivan thinks this is a very, very, very important question. He comments on it here, here, here, here, here and here. Which we guess makes Sullivan the world's first Blog Cabin Republican.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Bill King, Benjamin Gastel, Aaron Shafer, Michael Segal, Ted Barszewski, Yehuda Hilewitz, Dan Brault, Jim Hart, Kent Somers, Doug Welty, Wes Gainer, John Sanders, Alan Chamberlain, Brian O'Neel and Robert Paci. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE