When Dominic Lawson, brother of Domestic Goddess (tm)
Nigella and son of Tory Chancellor turned Climate Change denialist Nigel,
replaced Melanie “not just Barking but
halfway to Upminster” Phillips as the Daily
Mail’s regular Monday columnist, the thought entered that this might be a
safer pair of hands than the ranting, frothing and occasional legal
action-prone Mad Mel.
What's f***ing wrong with my pundits, c***?!?
Sadly, with today’s effort, Dom has shown anyone with the
most basic knowledge of the subject in which he is dabbling that he is just as
bad as Ms Phillips at opening mouth and inserting boot: “This
is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked”
reads the headline. Lawson has read an article in the Independent, and it has told him what he wants to hear.
The Indy’s article
is titled “The
lost girls: Illegal abortion widely used by some UK ethnic groups to avoid
daughters 'has reduced female population by between 1,500 and 4,700'”,
and purports to have statistical evidence that female foetuses are being
aborted on demand by certain ethnic groups. This enables Lawson to lay into
David Steel, who tabled the 1967 Abortion Act. He concluded thus.
“How humiliating for
those running this vast department of state that a cash-strapped newspaper with
a tiny fraction of their resources has dug deeper into the census figures and
proved, to quote a lecturer in statistics from Imperial College, London, that
‘the only readily available explanation consistent with a statistically
significant gender shift of the sort observed in the census data is
gender-selective abortion’”.
How humiliating, also, that a blogger with a tiny fraction
of the resources available to the Daily
Mail and its legendarily foul mouthed editor had already exposed the Independent article as “A truly epic fail in data journalism”
FOUR DAYS before Lawson’s rant was published. Yes, the Indy’s article passed
before the inspection of Unity
at Ministry of Truth last Thursday.
And he concluded thus: “I
am genuinely at a loss to understand exactly what the Independent thinks it’s playing at here as the only
halfway plausible explanation I can think of for any of this is that someone at
the paper has run across Dubuc and Coleman’s study, failed miserably to
understand any of it, least of all the entire methodology section, and then took
an utterly half-arsed punt trying to pull off their own similar analysis
without realising that they hadn’t got the first clue what they were doing”.
So where was Dominic Lawson’s research?
Where his research was, was absent. What we have here is another
excellent example of a well-resourced newspaper failing to bother itself with
investigative journalism, and instead throwing money at overpaid and lazy
columnists.
That results in yet another
epic fail in data journalism. No change
there, then.
No comments:
Post a Comment