Nyhan Lied, Trillions Thousands Died

More spin and dissembling from Brendan Nyhan:

This year's Hollywood is out of touch moment from the Oscars -- Gwyneth Paltrow's (pre-written) award introduction began with "Thanks to cell phones, almost everyone in the world is now a cinematographer." Um, "almost everyone"? There are approximately 2.2 million cell phone subscribers worldwide, but how many of their phones can take video? More importantly, World Bank estimates show that approximately 1.3 billion people make less than $1 a day and another 1.6 billion make $1-$2 per day. Call me crazy, but I don't think many of those people are taking video with their cell phones.

2.2 million cellular subscribers? As in somewhat less than one percent of the total population of the United States. Follow the link and they seem to be talking about billions of subscribers, but what's a few orders of magnitude between friends.

I was trying two think of an amusing joke based on a deliberate typo too end this post with but I couldn't come up with anything.

Comments

Wait, so is the typo in the sentence about the typo intentional or not? This is all much too (or is that to?) meta for my taste.

Posted by Sam L. | February 25, 2007 11:34 PM

And the typos are so common and amusing nobody would get a deliberate joke.

Posted by jimbo | February 25, 2007 11:54 PM

I don't believe either 2.2 million or 2.2 billion.

The latter would suggest market penetration of at least 20 - 30% in rural developing nations, which I think is unlikely. (I remember once hearing a statistic saying that half the world's population has never made a phone call; apparently nearly all the rest have their own cell phones, or will have by the end of the year. Right.)

The first number is obviously way low. There's probably more than ten times that just here in the U.S.

Posted by jimBOB | February 26, 2007 2:03 AM

I don't think 2.2 billion is completely implausible. I heard a statistic on NPR that 6 years ago there were 3 million cell phone users in India. Today there are 7 million cell phone users added PER MONTH!

A friend of mine just back from the Peace Corp in Africa. He said he could be in some of the poorest and most rural areas of the nation he was stationed in, and there would be people who own and use cell phones. Surreal...

Posted by CKT | February 26, 2007 2:34 AM

I'm going with the 'billion.' It's actually consistent with the view that 1/2 the world's population hasn't made a phone call. The half that has, I'm guessing, mostly uses cell phones, since capital expenses for a cellular network are less than for wireline, and that's how you have to roll in the third world. Any poor country setting up a telecom system these days would be using cellular.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 26, 2007 2:49 AM

Number of mobile phones
China 437 million
India 70 million
Japan 95 million
Korea 38 million
Indonesia 47 million

All available from the CIA's World factbook so I doubt the 2.2 billion is just made up.

Posted by the intertubes are magic | February 26, 2007 3:19 AM

It's worth noting that not every "subscriber" is necessarily a unique individual, or even an individual at all.

On the topic of video, while I guess the U.S. might be slightly ahead of the curve when it comes to the latest gadgets, has anyone else noticed how maddeningly difficult it is to get a phone WITHOUT a camera these days? This is particularly vexing to me since camera phones aren't allowed in numerous government buildings where regular phones are permitted.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2007 3:25 AM

There's a very real reason for using mobile phones in developing countries: it's easier and cheaper to deliver service. With wireless you set up broadcasting towers to connect users, whereas with traditional land-line service you have to roll out all that wire.

Sure, we pay an arm and a leg in the developed nations for wireless service, but that has more to do with telecomm pricing schemes and history (in the developed world we've been installing land lines for a century) than it does with technology.

Posted by josephdietrich | February 26, 2007 4:49 AM

Oh, what NtEW said. I thought I had read all the comments, too...

Posted by josephdietrich | February 26, 2007 5:03 AM

I'm willing to believe the 2.2 billion number. Cell phones are super cheap in the developing world. I have a Tibetan friend who lives on a refugee camp in India. There has never been a phone line in his house, but he and his parents all have cell phones. His internet business was the only physical telephony connection he ever had. He just closed the business because people can get internet service from their cell phone cheaper than he can provide it. The going rate in his part of India is 7 rupees (15 cents) per minute for international calls to the United States. That's international, not local. I have to pay more than 2 dollars per minute going the other way on my cell phone. Everywhere else I've been to in the developing world seems pretty much the same. I've seen plenty of people in Laos sitting in front of their bamboo huts and talking on their cell phones. I've seen delivery people in Thailand who have a stick with a basket on each end and no shoes. But they have a cell phone so the people to which they deliver pineapples can call in their order. 2.2 billion cell phones sounds about right.

Posted by fostert | February 26, 2007 5:40 AM

What a tool.

At least he was trying to "gotcha" someone who could use it. Call it the Battle of The Misinformed and Self-Satisfied.

Posted by Chris | February 26, 2007 6:05 AM

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more than 2.2 million cell phone users in Russia alone, a lot more. As others have noted they are actually pretty common in the developing world since the infrastructure is easier to put up than land-lines, esp. if you've never had a decent land-line system. In many of these countries the system is all pre-paid and often the one receiving the call doesn't pay. Even in Russia where there are lots of land-line phones it can take months or longer to get a new line installed and the connection is often bad. But you can buy an (unlocked) cellphone used for less money, you can add money to your account via little ATM-like kiosks that are all over the place, and it's fairly cheap. I'd be surprised if there are not close to a million (or more) cell-phones just in Moscow. This person has either made a silly mistake w/o noticing it or else is a major tool.

Posted by Matt | February 26, 2007 8:25 AM

Call me crazy, but I don't think many of those people are taking video with their cell phones.

He's crazy. But just for thinking that this was somehow a "Hollywood out of touch moment."

How geeky do you have to be to demand everything that comes out of the mouth of an actor/actress during an entertainment show to be 100% accurate?

More importantly, World Bank estimates........

Snore. Man, what a freak.

Gwyneth and the show's writers should have googled the World Bank's estimates on individual global wages/earnings before making a rhetorical point at an awards show for movies, damn it!

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2007 9:30 AM

Talk about out of touch. There's got to be more than 2.2 million cell phone subscribers in New York City alone. Brooklyn alone must have more than a million subscribers.

Even if you didn't know that, wouldn't you think that maybe there's a reason that since cell phones were introduced, every region has new area codes? I mean, New York City has had THREE new area codes introduced since cell phones got popular.

Globally speaking, it's actually a tiny minority of people whose lives hasn't been revolutionized by cell phones. Poor people in remote villages all over the world have been able to use them for the first time. Yeah, not every person in every village, but many people in many villages who had never been able to do this before. In poor countries that didn't have land line infrastructure, cell phones have been huge drivers of economic efficiency and prosperity by improving communications. Look at Vietnam, where 33 of 100 people have phones, and 2/3 of those phones are cell phones. Fishermen can call-in their catch and find out where prices are highest, handymen can post their telephone number on a sign and increase their business.

Cell phones can even fill in gaps in a poor nation's financial industry. In the Phillipines, you can electronically transfer money to your cell phone and use it to buy things. In a nation where many people don't have bank accounts, it's a way for expatriate members to send money back home to their poor relatives.

So, it's Nyhan who's incredibly clueless. Unsurprising, really.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2007 10:56 AM

"the U.S. might be slightly ahead of the curve"

Depends where you're comparing it to. If you mean compared to Japan, Korea, China, Chile, Argentina... then we are getting our asses kicked. Camera phones are passe'. What you find abroad (in mostly developed countries or mid-income countries with rich areas) often surpasses what we have here. Cell phone companies find Americans aren't willing to buy cell phones with tons of features or are specialized for particular uses, so they aren't marketed to Americans. In most of the world, a quality cell phone is treated as a luxury good to save up for. In Korea, for example, they sell tiny lipstick-sized and -shaped phones where you pop out your sim card and put it in this phone that takes up less space for nights of clubbing. Rural parts of developing countries often have better reception than Americans do. Try calling from NYC's subways.

Posted by Reality Man | February 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Nyhan has fixed the mistake.
A friend of mine who has lived in Africa once told me that, as Joseph Dietrich and Anonymous 10:56 have said, the fact that cell phones don't require the costly building of phone lines means many Africans have skipped directly from no phone to cell phone.
It was pretty ridiculous of Nyhan to get worked up about a joke regardless of the correct figures.

Posted by James Kabala | February 26, 2007 11:36 AM

Could someone fill me in on the liberal blogger stance on Nyhan? I know Atrios holds a smoldering grudge against him for some reason, and almost single-handedly torpedoed his short-lived position at TAP. He seems like a pretty intellectually honest fellow though, besides being a "concern troll"--a label that once afixed seems to be impossible to remove.

So what's the deal with this guy? Is he really so hated that one of his typos is worth an entire scornful post?

Posted by Ben | February 26, 2007 11:39 AM

based on a deliberate typo

No, please. We prefer to think that your typos are non-deliberate. It's funnier that way.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Ben--

Well I don't know if there's a "liberal blogger stance" on Nyhan, but I'm wary of him because he seems committed to Broderism -- not happy if he isn't taking about equal shots at both sides of the political spectrum. And IIRC that's really what torpedoed his stay at TAP -- he wrote some silly piece attacking Democrats, Rosenfeld him told him not to do that, and he quit.

I'm glad to see that he has a sense of humor about it, using "Mr. Reasonable Himself" as a blurb, but that's basically my critique.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 26, 2007 12:04 PM

Could someone fill me in on the liberal blogger stance on Nyhan?

I think you're reading something into MY's post that isn't there. The post itself reads like needling about a typo and the sort of over-reliance on specific language that Nyhan usually exhibits, not any sort of serious charge. I share Weiner's wariness, though I didn't think the TAPPED matter was handled very well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 26, 2007 12:10 PM

To be fair, I just spent a minute or two clicking around his archives and didn't find as much raw Broderism as I thought there was. So maybe Nyhan's reputation is exaggerated by liberal blog criticism, though I think there's something there.

Also, what SCMTim said.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 26, 2007 12:13 PM

There's probably more than ten times that just here in the U.S.

Wow, ya think? You really think out of 300 million Americans that over 22 million have cell phones?? I also hear the US has about one television per 5-6 households...and I think a few people even have cars! A magical place...

Posted by benj | February 26, 2007 3:58 PM

I was trying two think of an amusing joke based on a deliberate typo too end this post with

you mean you were trying to think of an amusing joke base on a deliberate typo toooo end this post with.

Posted by typo-man | February 26, 2007 5:18 PM

Headline should be: Brendan Nyhan, Up Too Late Watching the Oscars; Writes Lame Snarky Post

Posted by AJ | February 26, 2007 6:31 PM

Is this the face of a fibber? I dunno, but I just threw up in my mouth a lot. When did Jebus decree that bloggers had to be so goldurn congenitally ugly? Also Matt— kudos on the bitchy post. Gawker'll come a-callin' one of these days!

Posted by Gregorio | February 27, 2007 6:43 AM

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/newhead4.jpg i thought i included this link to nyhan's shiteating grin. oh well. save yourself some breakfast.

Posted by Gregorio | February 27, 2007 6:44 AM

While we're debating errors on orders of magnitude, how about that old bubbemeise that gets trotted out every year at the Superbowl and the Oscars about how a "billion people are watching this around the world"? That has been debunked in various places. Hell, only 40.2 million watched the Oscars Sunday in the USA according to Nielsen.! Only 999,960,800,000 more viewers needed from around the world to validate the Academy's boast. (It sort of helps keep things in perspective if you type out the entire number instead of using the shorthand version. Like they say in the US Congress, a billion here, a billion there, and soon your're talkin' about real money.) Actually, American Idol was watched by more people last week than the Oscars. Similar results can be found for the Superbowl ratings. I'm more inclined to believe Gwyneth Paltrow any day over the shills for the flatulent old men who run the Academy or the NFL.

Posted by Robert Glassman | February 28, 2007 9:41 AM

OOPS! Only 960,800,000 more viewers. Shame on me for not checking my math! Sorry. RG

Posted by Robert Glassman | February 28, 2007 9:43 AM