Last of 8 weekly articles documenting bias in “The Cambridge Student”: Lent 2009 Issue 8.

First, some minor examples of bias in this week’s TCS, then some notes on bias.

Tom Chigbo, the well-deserved winner of the election for CUSU President, is described as “educated in a London state school”. “He attended a comprehensive school in Fulham”.

But the London Oratory is “one of the top secondary schools in the capital”. “[Tony Blair's] assertion… that his teenage children attended ‘ordinary state schools’ was met with disbelief by some newspapers which commented that the Oratory was hardly an average comprehensive.” Peter Hitchens described the Oratory as “a near-unique school which… was comprehensive in the same way that 10 Downing Street is an inner-city terraced house.”

I don’t know what the point of this dishonesty by TCS is, but it is dishonesty nonetheless.

A comment piece claims “our intention is not to brandish the banner of political correctness”, yet manages to both condemn Guolong Li’s homophobic jokes while at the same time maintaining that “The beliefs of every individual, of course, deserve respect.” Wrong. There are plenty of beliefs which do not deserve respect.

The article thinks that because we still live in a world with “homophobia”, Li should have been condemned more strongly rather than simply laughed at. Perhaps. I’m not sure. As Tammy Baldwin, a gay Democratic Party congresswoman from Wisconsin said, “If you want to live in the kind of world where you can put a picture of your partner on your desk, then put a picture of your partner on your desk, and you will live in that kind of world.”

We’ve blogged TCS’ curious dislike of St John’s College before. The following quotations are unlike anything else in the article they are taken from (my emphasis):

“Spectators revelled in LMBC II’s decision to take the opportunity to make an arse of their top of Div. 2 spot by getting “overbumped” by Peterhouse’s second boat, a move which sent them soaring down four places.”

“…with Downing bumping their way into the number 2 spot at the expense of LMBC I — another small victory from the combined boat clubs of the respectable Cambridge colleges”!

“The Union Society has been criticised in the past [by who?] for representing a certain type of politics — namely small ‘c’ conservative. This image problem [!] was recognised by the Union Press Secretary…”

A good way to see how bias shapes TCS is to compare articles from TCS and Varsity. This week’s Varsity gets straight to the point in an article “Cambridge report attacks state education”: “Cambridge report highlights state sector failings”. “State school students are failing to get in to top universities simply because they don’t get good enough grades, according to research by Cambridge Assessment.” The TCS headline is less hard-hitting: “Improved exam performance key to access”. The article, while factually accurate, avoids explaining the headline until half-way through, preferring to focus for the first half on lack of information as a reason fewer pupils from poorer backgrounds apply to Cambridge.

An interview with Lembit Öpik uses the phrase “lurch to the right”. Why are moves to the right always described as “lurches”? Is there any other way? Can one glide to the right?

Notes on bias:

Jeff Randall (former BBC Business Editor) about the BBC (The Observer, Sunday 15 January 2006):

“It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground”.

Peter Hitchens about his Talk Radio programme, “Grilled On Both Sides” (The Guardian, Monday 3 April 2000):

Instead of pretending that the programme’s presenters had no opinions, we openly acknowledged that they did, and allowed them to debate directly, without a referee to get in the way.

Kelvin had originally offered me a microphone to myself but I suggested the double-headed format because I have been worried for years about broadcasting bias, and wanted to see if it could be overcome in an entertaining way…

I always thought my Talk Radio programme worked better when I was pitted against Derek Draper – who disagreed with me about everything from the age of consent to the euro – than it did when my opponent was Austin Mitchell, whose Old Labour instincts were closer to my views than he liked to admit.

The BBC’s assumption of infallibility often shows in its presenters, who honestly believe that they are being fair provided that they give equal time to Labour and the Tories, and never express any direct opinions themselves. They seem unaware that the selection of questions, the tone of voice and the assumptions behind their choice of subject are themselves conditioned by a set of opinions. They do not view these as opinions, since from university onwards they seldom if ever meet anyone who disagrees with them. These views are the assumed basis of civilised existence. You might as well try explaining to a fish that it is wet, as explaining to a BBC insider that he is biased.

This creates another curious effect. Because the BBC believes itself to be the cultural and moral mainstream, it tends to pick outside presenters who suit its world view and sideline those who do not.

I don’t believe that TCS is biased simply because I often disagree with it. There have been plenty of articles this term which contained viewpoints I disagree with, but which I haven’t mentioned because I don’t think they were examples of bias. (Indeed, some articles were so good that I mentioned them in order to praise them.) I’ve also tried not to quote too many comment pieces, but limit my analysis to news articles and editorials. My intention is rather to point out the many assumptions which TCS articles tend to make, whether consciously or unconsciously: how the world-view of TCS editors and journalists affects what they write. As Peter Hitchens says, “These views are the assumed basis of civilised existence.” It hasn’t just been this term: check out the communist and anti-Thatcher images on a previous Facebook group for recruitment, “TCS Comment 2008″. Little things like this may seem insignificant, but they are symptomatic of the larger problem.

I think Jeff Randall’s comment applies well to TCS. Last week’s TCS said “The centre-right, which has had a tight grip on the sabbatical positions in recent years, seems to be yielding [to?] a more activist brand of officer.” Yet recent CUSU sabbatical officers have not been remotely “centre-right”. They have been left-wing. TCS can only describe them as “centre-right” because it is even more left-wing than recent sabbatical officers, yet it believes itself to be “centre”. One of its journalists describes his political views as “A little bit of right, a bit more left, and lots of centre.” There is no such thing. To describe one’s views as “centre” is merely to claim that they are “normal”, and by extension that the views of others are not “normal”.

Similarly, this week there was an article about a survey of Cambridge student politics. The survey had 345 respondents, admittedly “self-selecting”. I don’t know how they heard of it — I certainly didn’t. It can’t have been advertised very widely. So I think it’s safe to assume that most of the respondents were lefties. (“85% had voted in CUSU or JCR elections” compared with the ~20% turnout for CUSU elections this year and last year. (And can TCS please stop referring to CUSU as “the Union”? It’s very confusing. Everyone else calls the Union Society “the Union”, and CUSU “CUSU”.)) “Most respondents placed all other students at Cambridge as ‘centre right’; the majority of respondents placed themselves as ‘centre left’.”

Well, it’s been an interesting term. I wasn’t sure at first that I’d have enough material to write these articles for eight consecutive weeks, but TCS have obliged. (I tried to do the same to Varsity each week, but I couldn’t detect systematic bias.) I hope you found them worthwhile.

Seventh of 8 weekly articles documenting bias in “The Cambridge Student”: Lent 2009 Issue 7.

Quite extreme biased reporting this week: “Students launched a ‘Vote Yes’ campaign supporting the creation of a CUSU sabbatical post for an Ethical Affairs Officer at the Sidgwick Site on Tuesday.”

The article manages to cover a column of the front page barely mentioning the existence of opposition to such a move. Instead it details the action of the Yes Campaign. Apparently thirteen people constitutes a noteworthy demonstration nowadays.

“Thirteen campaigners spelt out the word YES with their bodies on the lawn at Sidgwick site. The display was accompanied by a banner reading ‘vote yes for a fulltime Ethical Affairs Officer’. The campaign dropped similar banners across the city.

The demonstration marks the beginning of a week of campaigning before the referendum takes place at the start of next week. The campaign has spread to the social networking site Facebook, with opposing ‘Vote Yes’ and ‘Vote No’ groups established to encourage debate. ‘Vote Yes’ advocates announced plans to step up the campaign over the coming week with additional “body spells” in Market Square and the Downing Site.

CUSU’S Ethical Affairs Team is currently run by part time officers, unlike the other teams, such as Welfare and Education, which are headed by sabbatical posts.

Supporters of the sabbatical post argue that the expansion of responsibilities make the role of Ethical Affairs Chair too demanding to carry out on a part-time basis.

“To be performed professionally, this job needs full-time and continuous attention, which is impossible to juggle with full-time study,” the ‘Vote Yes’ Facebook group reads.”

Finally,

“Opinion within CUSU remains divided.”

This is followed by brief quotes from a “No” campaigner and a “Yes” campaigner.

A minor example of bias on page 7, in a story about university fees. The pull-quote pushes the TCS line: “The extra funding has to come from the government’s investment, not students.” “The government seems increasingly unwilling to indulge universities in need of subsidy”. Need?

But I don’t see that any reason whatsoever why I shouldn’t have been required to pay back that money. Individuals pursuing their separate individual interests also provide public benefits. Of course I think that the public benefited from my getting an education, but the primary beneficiary was me. I was the one who got the benefit from it. I was the one who had the higher income.”

This term has seen some of the best Varsity editorials. Unfortunately, it’s also seen some of the worst TCS editorials — a shame given their high quality in some past terms. Usually they don’t have much to say. This week they did. “While we wouldn’t necessarily vote for them, we’d like to see some openly right-wing candidates to oppose the overwhelmingly left-wing consensus.” This is a strange view — that people we disagree with should be candidates to give the impression of a more vibrant democracy. (I suggest the sentence “The Cambridge Right has seemingly decided to remain sniping from the sidelines rather than fielding a candidate to engage in open debate”, assuming that the “Cambridge Right” is an institution or an organisation, betrays TCS’ collectivist bias, as do the headlines “Your CUSU candidates” and “TCS shows you your next leaders”.) I also am very surprised that “this paper is backing the outspoken activist Ed Maltby, someone who has shown consistent dedication to campaigning on behalf of students.” I hardly think the self-described “revolutionary socialist” can be described as “a candidate who will represent us stridently and defend our interests vociferously” (my emphasis). For example, he participated in the recent “occupation” of the Law Faculty, which was very far from popular.

Sixth of 8 weekly articles documenting bias in “The Cambridge Student”: Lent 2009 Issue 6.

Protesters have accused Cambridge University of “turning a blind eye” to Ethical Investment and “continually not engaging with CUSU Ethical affairs” on the topic, at a student demonstration on Monday.

A rather strange article this week, about so-called “ethical investment”. The university is attacked by protesters for holding investments which are claimed to be unethical. The TCS article is essentially a plug for “CUSU Ethical Affairs” (who we’ve covered before) — it doesn’t consider the possibility that opponents of the campaign exist. Never mind the more general problem that a campaigning body for “ethics” cannot represent the diverse ethical beliefs of the various students in Cambridge (and why is their website URL www.green.cusu.cam.ac.uk ?). Indeed, only “Roughly 200 students” attended the protest, a number much lower than the 337 people who said they would go and the 538 people who said they might go on the facebook event, and far lower than those “Not Attending” (1,431) or “Awaiting Reply” (1,127).

More important (therefore) is the uncritical nature of the article.

several Colleges, such as Trinity and St. John’s, have investments in the arms manufacturers BAE Systems and QuinetiQ, as well as in Rolls Royce; companies condemned by Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) as unethical.

Note the use of a quote to condemn these companies, rather than doing so outright. There’s no attempt to justify it, merely the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

“It would not be tolerated if Cambridge University publicly endorsed companies which violate International Human Rights Law or damage the University’s educational mission. It should not be tolerated that the University can financially support these companies through its investments,” reads a statement on the campaign website. “The University needs an investment policy that reflects its commitment to human rights, education, and sustainability.”

Indeed it would not be tolerated if Cambridge University publicly endorsed companies which violate International Human Rights Law. But the website gives no examples of any companies endorsed or invested in by the University that do. There are plenty things that “it would not be tolerated” if Cambridge University endorsed, and which they don’t.

At the end is a rather sinister quote from someone from the NUS.

“Educational institutions are publicly funded beacons of the community which help us to form an understanding of the wider world, so it is important that they have Ethical Investment Policies,” she told TCS.

“Universities have a duty to reflect the values of the students and staff themselves and should not be contributing indirectly to groups that are destructive to human rights.”

This idea that universities should promote a very specific worldview, rather than simply teach departmental subjects and provide an environment for general learning, discussion and debate, is insidious.

TCS should not so report “CUSU Ethical Affairs” so uncritically.

Page 7: “Universities around the country at risk for bankruptcy…” “A spokesman at the Department told reporters that: ‘Universities are not going bankrupt…’”

Page 8: “he tried to correct [sic] inequalities of wealth”.

On page three there is a splendid example of editorial bias, marring a mainly good article.

The article is entitled “University pay review shows men still better off”. The article itself is balanced, which accurately reports a review by the University’s Equal Pay Review Group. The review “revealed that the average stipend for female employees is £28,247, while for men it is £37,157; a difference of some 31.54%.” The reporter explains: “These figures reflect the imbalance in the gender distribution within the overall staff profile, that is proportionately more women are employed on lower grades and more men on higher grades; and within grades more men appear at the high end of the pay scale as they have longer service with the University.” And “we receive fewer applications from women than from men for such senior positions.” And the TCS article also mentions “In grade six, which concerns clerical staff, women out-number men and their average pay is about 2.51% higher. Moreover, in grades 5,7, and 9, that is, non-clinical research staff, the report found ‘very low differences in pay.’”

So there appears to be no problem.

Now, a few words in the article display the author’s unconscious assumptions: the use of the word “revealed” (twice) rather than “showed” indicates, I think, that we are supposed to read the revelation as slightly shocking, as if the university would wish to keep the fact secret. The word “some” could be cut: it would normally be used to indicate approximateness, yet the figure given is very accurate; the word’s only purpose is to indicate disapproving shock at the size of the figure. Another quibble concerns the recommendations of the so-called “Equality and Human Rights Commission”, which advises that “A difference of 3-5% should be ‘regularly monitored’, while ‘action is needed to address the issue and close the gap’ if male and female pay differs by over 5%.” How is this rendered in the article? “Male and female wages mostly differentiated by 3% or less within grades, which means that the University is not required to act.” Well, that’s not true. The University is not required to act anyway. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendations are only recommendations, without legal force.

But this close analysis is relatively trifling, revealing though it is. More extreme is the editorial bias. The headline is “University pay review shows men still better off”. Note the word “still”, as if it is a problem that needs to be rectified. Then note that the headline is simply not true — it is contradicted by the article.

Then note the pull-quote: “Action is needed to address the issue and close the gap”! This clearly distorts the article, taking a quote completely out of context to make a point contradicted by the article. Shame.