In order to objectively analyze current events one must utilize a slew of resources to formulate a well rounded opinion. The Middle East Zone offers unbiased research and encourages its readers to succinctly formulate their own opinions. Furthermore, the Middle East Zone subscribers acquire the necessary skills to critically assess their sources. These skills enable the reader to develop concrete and rational conclusions. Thus, our subscribers become eloquent analysts of the articles they are reading, the news bulletin they are watching, the debates they are listening to or the lectures they are attending.

The reader must remain cognizant of the importance of the credibility and qualifications of their source. Many authors, analysts and politicians are susceptible to favoritism and grapple with their predilections. Therefore, the onus is on the reader to be able to identify when this nepotism influences the work in question. Authors and journalists have the canny to portray themselves as unprejudiced and impartial. Consequently, the reader must be alert and disposed to reading between the lines in order to overcome personal inclinations of authors.

Another potential concern could surface if the report in question is amassed by a group (or an individual) that is unbiased yet fails to conduct their due diligence. Consequently, their sources might not be verified and their work is prone to unintentional errors.  

The following is a list of recommendations we have compiled to assist our readers in improving their analytical skills:

1) Diversity: It is imperative that a number of sources are utilized in order to reduce the likelihood of fractional conclusions. The Middle East Zone recommends that a minimum of three different sources are consulted before making a judgment. For instance, an individual in favor of using television as the means for gathering information is encouraged to follow three networks for news coverage. This assures the individual of a diverse influx of views and opinions. Likewise, an individual who prefers to read can examine three newspapers and/or articles.

2) Due Diligence: The individual must check the background of the sources. Following more than one source becomes moot if the sources share the same belief, ideology or trend. The individual must try to locate sources with a different set of beliefs and views on a particular topic. For example, it would be wise to draw on one center-left and one center-right source as opposed to a pair of leftist (or centrist or rightist) sources. This enables the individual to retain a certain degree of priceless input while neutralizing the ideological proclivity of the source.

3) A Numbers Game: Numbers can often be deceiving when used improperly. Prior to the first Gulf War (following Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait), the Iraqi army was “marketed” as a strong army and “inflated” as one of the largest in the world by some media sources. The noteworthy aspect was that the Iraqi army in the early 1990s did have a decent number of soldiers yet many factors were left out.

First, a considerable segment of the Iraqi army was ill equipped and poorly trained. Second, the Iraqi Air Force was not a force to be reckoned with. Thus, Saddam’s Iraq was obviously susceptible to aerial powers (U.S., U.K. et al). The Republican Guard units, by far regarded as Saddam’s elite force, formed a small portion of the Iraqi army. Therefore, all these gigantic numbers and venerated references to the Iraqi army in the early 1990s were unfounded.

The number of troops does not signify strength. It is important for those troops to be well trained and well equipped. The number of troops might be sufficient to categorize an army as “large,” but a closer look unmistakably reveals that the majority of the Iraqi army was composed of farmers, tribesmen, paramilitary units, or militias as opposed to proficient soldiers.

Another example of how numbers can be deceiving is when percentages and proportions are ignored for the sake of the actual numbers. Comparing China’s population to that of the United States numerically would be imprudent, yet this is done on a regular basis.  However, it would be reasonable to compare China to India since both have populations of similar magnitude.  China’s population is around 1.2 billion and that of India is around 1 billion while that of the United States is under 300 million. Therefore, it would not be judicious to compare India’s and China’s populace to that of the U.S. when making certain assessments.

The logical approach to comparing the aforementioned populations would be to contrast percentages. A common claim would be that China has more doctors and engineers than the United States. For the purposes of this example, China is hypothetically estimated to have 10 million engineers while the U.S. figure is assumed to be 5 million. From a numerical standpoint the statement made about China having more engineers and doctors would be accurate. However, comparing the above data as a percentage of each country’s total population would paint a very different picture. Though an initial glance at the numbers suggests a disconcerting outlook for the United States, the proper analysis of this data suggests that the United States is proportionally better off than China. Therefore, in such a case comparing numbers directly for analytical purposes is ill advised.

4)  Relationship with the Event: If the source of the event (i.e. author, reporter or writer) is affected or involved in the event, then odds favor he/she will be influenced by it. One could rationally conclude that the work is influenced too. It is important to keep in mind while watching (or reading) the report that the source could be depicting his/her own experience. 

5) Believe or Not Believe: Once again, the individual must not hold any preconceived notions on the dynamics associated with an incident before scrutinizing the mechanisms driving the event. Individuals should not believe everything they hear or read! Radio stations and television networks seldom have the knowledge of all the intricacies of an incident which has just occurred. In addition, networks and stations often rush reports in order to create a precedent for their competitors to follow. Under such circumstances, the accuracy of the report becomes questionable. Thus, they might erroneously describe events. As mentioned in the previous points, various factors must be considered before deciding the validity of a report and/or an article.