Wednesday, August 10, 2016

President Trump teaches a class on how to think



The President (pounding a lectern in a Harvard classroom): Write this down. Rule Number 1: Always speak before you think. That way, you’ll never know what you meant, and no matter what meaning someone attributes to you, you can say, “That’s not what I had in mind.”

Student 1 (reading from her notes): Rule Number 1 is, “Always speak before you think”?

The President: I never said that.

Student 1: But….

The President: Here’s what I mean, Toots. I have two aides, Sam Speake and Yu Think. They’re always pushing and shoving each other in the cafeteria line, so I have an ironclad rule: Serve Sam first -- he’s bigger. Always Speake before Yu Think.

Student 2: So, this is a rule for avoiding food fights in the White House?

The President: No, it’s our nuclear-launch policy. Pay attention.

Student 2: But….

The President: Now I know why the bellhops at my hotels are never Harvard graduates. Harvard can’t cut the mustard. At the White House, we hire all of our staff from the world-class Trump University. The speechwriters are so good, you’d think you were reading Lincoln.

Student 3: You probably are.

--Leon Taylor, tayloralmaty@ail.com

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Murrow at morrow




The Murrow boys: Pioneers in the front lines of broadcast journalism
Stanley Cloud and Lynne Olson
Mariner Books.  1997.

Before World War II, CBS newsmen in Europe were supposed mainly to schedule broadcasts of concerts; radio news at that time consisted of unctuous commentary from New York.  In March 1938, when Adolf Hitler was muscling Austria into a gunshot marriage with Germany, newsman William Shirer had to abandon Vienna in order to broadcast a children’s choir in Ljubljana. 

When Hitler threatened Austria and Czechoslovakia, the CBS bureau chief in London, Edward Murrow, took it upon himself to broadcast news bulletins, which proved to be more popular than the CBS brass in New York had anticipated.   He ransacked Europe for American correspondents; although the execs judged a reporter mainly by his deep voice, Murrow sought correspondents who read voraciously and spoke several languages, like Shirer and Eric Sevareid.  “Murrow and I are not supposed to do any talking on the radio ourselves,” Shirer confided to his diary in 1937. “New York wants us to hire newspaper correspondents for that.  We just arrange broadcasts.  Since I know as much about Europe as most newspaper correspondents, and a bit more than the younger ones, who lack languages and background, I don’t get the point.”

Soon enough, New York let them broadcast. The results, chronicled in this evocative account, were history.

CBS correspondent Charles Collingwood never let anything get in the way of a good story.  In France after the Normandy invasion, a broken front tooth caused him to whistle as he spoke.  Before broadcasting again, he would have to undergo the dentist’s drill in England.  But the liberation of Paris was nigh, and he wanted to be the first to report it.  So he recorded a fictitious account of the liberation and forwarded it to London, with instructions to release it when the Americans had marched into the City of Light. Of course, CBS aired the recording upon receipt, which made front-page news across the US – and later made for red faces all around.

Sometimes the Murrow boys made for white faces all around – white with shock at their daredevil stunts.  Eric Sevareid was flying to China in a C-46, aka “the flying coffin,” when the corporal next to him remarked:  “Know what?  Left engine’s gone out.” That left one engine, and the staff was soon hurling suitcases out the door in order to lighten the load on the labored motor.  It didn’t work, and there was nothing to do but jump.  Luckily, Sevareid remembered to yank the ring on his parachute.  They landed in head-hunter country, but evidently the hosts weren’t hungry.  The rescue took two weeks and a 120-mile stroll.

Amidst the risks was a lesson or two about reporting.  Murrow stressed that accounts of the war – even the hard-news stories – should garnish the facts with human detail.  Although he was the most scholarly of the Murrow boys, Shirer took the lesson to heart.  Here he is, in June 1940, observing the French and the Nazis as they signed the armistice in the same French forest, the same French railcar, in which Germany capitulated in 1918:

“Down the road, through the woods, I could see the refugees, slowly, tiredly, filing by – on weary feet, on bicycles, on carts, a few on trucks, an endless line.  They were exhausted and dazed, those walking were footsore, and they did not know yet that an armistice had been signed and that the fighting would be over very soon now.” But it wouldn’t. --Leon Taylor  tayloralmaty@gmail.com


Good reading

William L. Shirer.  Berlin diary: The journal of a foreign correspondent, 1934-1941.  Johns Hopkins University Press.  2002.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

How to fabricate a presidential race





Hold the presses!  Ben Carson is edging ahead of Donald Trump!

Or so the New York Times informs us, right in the headline about its co-sponsored survey of Republican voters.  A little further down in the story, the Times confides that the size of the difference in proportions of respondents who prefer Carson or Trump for president is “within the margin of sampling error.” Having gotten that irksome ritual phrase out of the way, the Times goes on to analyze the race as if Carson really was in the lead.

Unfortunately for the Times, the “margin of error” is exactly that.  The race is too close to call.  In the survey, the difference between the proportions supporting Carson and Trump is so small that among all Republicans it might well be zero.   Had the Times and CBS News surveyed voters the day before, they might easily have found that Trump on top.

Sometimes polls are meaningful even when we can’t generalize from them.  For example, suppose that we survey all Times reporters and find that 51% of them are Republicans. We might not be able to deduce that most reporters in the US are Republicans, but at least we know that to be true of one of the country’s most influential newspapers.  But in the case at hand, the sample has no meaning other than what we can infer about Republicans in general.  The fact that Carson is slightly ahead of Trump in the sample has no significance.  It wouldn’t merit a headline in even the Western Succotash News-Free Press.

Journalists sometimes dismiss the margin of error because they think that it refers to mistakes by the surveyors, such as coding the wrong answer.  Surely, they reason, if the surveyors are careful, the “margin of error” will be just an empty phrase.

In reality, the margin of error refers to all chance events that affect the outcome of the survey.  Most of them are unavoidable. For example, the sample of voters surveyed is virtually never a perfect mirror of all Republicans.  Even if it is, the responses are still subject to randomness.  An indifferent voter may state a preference for Carson today and Trump tomorrow. 

Before declaring that Carson (or Trump) is in the lead, we must calculate the size of random factors.  If we are willing to live with only a 5% chance of being wrong about the leader, and the survey responses vary so much from day to day that there’s a 10% chance of being wrong, then we should confess that we don’t really know who’s in the lead.  That won’t get us on page one, but it happens to be the truth.

 Leon Taylor, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

Notes

These points also apply to the survey questions about voter attitudes, about which the Times speculates in great detail but without a single reference to a confidence interval.  Given the amount of dough that the Times and CBS News are spending on the survey, they would be well within their rights to demand that the pollsters provide a 95% confidence interval for each question. 

Such an interval means this: If we take 100 random samples of Republicans, then the interval will include the percentages backing a given position in at least 95 of the samples.  For example, suppose that the confidence interval for the difference in shares of respondents backing Carson and Trump is [-2%, 2%].  Then we may expect that in 95 or more of 100 samples, the difference in shares will be between -2% (Trump leads slightly) and 2% (Carson leads slightly).  Since the confidence interval includes zero, we cannot rule out the possibility that among all Republicans the race is a dead heat.

Now suppose instead that the 95% confidence interval is [2%, 4%].  Then, in at least 95 of the 100 samples, Carson would be in the lead by 2% to 4%. Since chances are less than 5% that Trump leads or that the two candidates are tied, we could safely conclude that Carson is the leader among all Republicans.

  
 References 

Jonathan Martin and Dalia Sussman.  Poll watch: Ben Carson edges ahead nationally in Times/CBS News poll.  New York Times.  October 28, 2015.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Unlucky Lindy




Lynne Olson.  Those angry days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s fight over World War II, 1939-1941.  New York: Random House. 2013.

In 1937, when fascists were fighting in China and Spain, Franklin Roosevelt proposed in a talk to quarantine global belligerents (never mind how).  He promptly ran into a media maelstrom.  “This time, Mr.  President, Americans will not be stampeded into going 3,000 miles across water to save [the civilized],” said the Boston Herald.  FDR was rueful.  “It’s a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead – and to find no one there.”

So Roosevelt did an about-face.  He would not lead the public; the public would lead him.  And the public, in the late Thirties, opposed the quarantine called war.  “…When German tanks rolled into Austria on March 12, 1938,” wrote historian Susan Dunn, “the president of the United States – trying to rally his New Deal supporters as he struggled with an economy in recession and prepared for a midterm election – said and did nothing.”

After all, he could do next to nothing to muzzle eloquent isolationists like Burton Wheeler, a Democrat Senator from Montana.  Wheeler famously compared Roosevelt’s bill for arming the British to the Agricultural Adjustment Act that reduced farm supply in order to raise the prices received by farmers: “The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal’s triple-A foreign policy; it will plow under every fourth American boy.” 

But FDR’s greatest antagonist was the lanky Midwesterner who became a hero by flying solo across the Atlantic in 1927.  Roosevelt and Charles Lindbergh had been squaring off ever since 1933, when the aviator warned the new President that the Army air corps lacked the experience needed to deliver the mail.  Many crashes later, FDR conceded the point and returned the air mail to the private sector.

Lindbergh knew less about foreign policy than aviation, although he didn’t seem to realize it, and he devoted himself throughout the late Thirties and early Forties to opposing American attempts to arm Britain against Nazi Germany.  As Lindbergh, recipient of a Nazi medal, saw it, Germany was a more natural ally of the US than the Soviet Union was. 

Des Moines debacle

He managed to tear down the isolationist movement as rapidly as he had built it up when in a 1941 speech in Des Moines, Iowa, he blamed the drift toward war partly on American Jews, who allegedly controlled the media.  In reality, only 3% of US newspaper publishers were Jews.  And the most famous of them, Arthur Sulzberger of The New York Times, hesitated to editorialize for intervention, fearing that his ethnicity might make his argument suspect among Americans in an age when anti-Semitism was common.  Such facts did not interest Lindbergh, whose hostility toward Jews is evident from his diary.  “A few Jews add strength and character to a country,” he wrote in 1939, “but too many create chaos.  And we are getting too many.”  

In Des Moines, he succeeded in linking isolationism to racism, and the America First movement went into decline among the educated who had created it.  Isolationism died of heart failure on December 7, and Lindbergh flew 50 or so sorties in the Pacific War.

Lindburgh’s stubborn speeches wrecked his family.  His wife, Anne Morrow, warned him that his bluntness would backfire, but he ignored her.  The two drifted apart. In 2003, years after Lindbergh and his wife had died, it came to light that he had fathered seven illegitimate children by three mistresses.

Olson’s books on World War II include The Murrow boys: Pioneers in the front lines of broadcast journalism, co-authored with Stanley Cloud, and Troublesome young men: The rebels who brought Churchill to power and helped save England.  Her limpid, structured prose is a pleasure to read.

   --Leon Taylor tayloralmaty@gmail.com

Good reading

Susan Dunn.  1940:  FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler – the election amid the storm.  New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.  2013.