Might just be the lack of intellectual rigor applied by staff writers at the New York Times. The paper splashed four pages of newsprint with the Ominous News that our kilbots soldiers are returning home transformed by their Mesopotamian adventures into sociopathic murderers. Except, em: No.
Ralph Peters does the math, so the J-school kids don’t have to:
A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that’s not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).
Now consider the Justice Department’s numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 – the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would’ve had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.
In other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.
If this was the first time the paper had pulled such a stunt you could attribute it to stupidity rather than malice. The way things are running though, it’s getting harder to be generous.
During my first job as a commercial property analyst I worked for a woman that taught me the “reasonable” test. Based on anything you know, no matter how diverse from the subject at hand, is your number reasonable?
The “reasonable” test is something I employ to this day. Clearly, the NYT doesn’t use it.
I have a friend who was a tunnel rat in ‘nam. He used to get so pissed when the media went on and on about Vietnam vets and how they go postal. He’d also get pissed when vets blamed all their problems on serving. (He did two or three tours, Marines, air and ground… although just saying he was a tunnel rat should explain enough.)
He used to tell me he thought that most of those folks had issues before they ever went to Vietnam… the war just didn’t help.
I don’t know if he was right or not. I know plenty of folks with PTSD from the war, so I think he was being a bit harsh. But his point was similar… the media loved to portray our Vietnam vets the same way.
Some things never change…
If this was the first time the paper had pulled such a stunt you could attribute it to stupidity rather than malice. The way things are running though, it’s getting harder to be generous.
I’ve wondered myself for a very long time. My personal experiences with media reporting and its multitudinous errors have left me with a bit less hatred for them, but still more distrust. Ultimately, the question of intent is irrelevant. Whether the “mistakes” are intentional or not, at the very least they do not care about the effect. I am reminded of the Burke quote on your sidebar.
Maybe Mark Twain needs Ralph Peters math too…
“Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and the NY Times”
On average Kennedy family men have killed more women than Iraq Veterans.
Oh, that’s just priceless, el duderino!
It’s not uncommon for people to not understand statistics. Just mention to any manager that 40% of all sick days happen on a Monday or Friday and see what happens. Or consider this: I had a friend whose wife sent him out to buy lottery tickets. He selected numbers like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. She was livid! “You idiot, what are the odds of those numbers coming up??”
But, as Lex says, sometimes it’s more a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance than a case of pure ignorance at work.
The motto of the New York Times used to be “All the news that’s fit to print.” The new motto must be “All the news that’s print to fit (our political agenda).
FbL: I think it’s very relevant. The media – especially the NYT – keep playing the same old song. Stirring an empty pot in a vain attempt to find something slimy at the bottom. Which is where they live – bottom feeders. At this point, I do believe they report these things with malice aforethought.
I agree that ultimately they don’t care about the effects of what they write. They are so wrapped up in their arrogant, warped world that giving thought to others outside themselves and their own agenda is quite simply impossible for them.
In fact, they are the slime at the bottom that they seek to find.
Kris, I don’t think I expressed myself well.
Whether reporters intend to cause damage or not, it still happens. Whether they’re incompetent, don’t seem to care about the effect of their publications, are trying to tear people down, or they believe they are “speaking the hard truths because we care about the troops and this country,” it’s still damaging. Either they’re of evil intent, or they’re complicit by their lack of concern and efforts to accuracy (indifference a la the Burke quote).
I think it is more crass than that, Fuzz.
They (NYT) are playing to their audience. Their audience WANTS their anti-war beliefs to be justified. If those beliefs cannot be justified by our losing the war, then they can be justified by other fictions (vets are suicidal, homicidal, etc.). NYT is an organism, and selling papers to their audience is just what they know how to do.
Accuracy isn’t an objective to them, it’s a pseudo-constraint. In other words, ‘how can we interpret the days events in a way that our audience will approve of, but cannot be shown to be a fabrication.’ This is why you see a lot of descriptive statistics on the surface, but no deeper analysis that would demonstrate how the statistic is meaningful. This also explains how their stories are prioritized.
And that is why they keep running the same discredited story in different formats. It sells papers to a certain marketplace.
Are the people who buy those papers evil? I think not. Are they indifferent – generally not so much, though perhaps about the wrong things. Naive, misfocused and wrong-headed – yes.
I buy the Sunday NYT every week. Mostly for amusement – I like to read about the crazy NYC real estate market, makes me feel slightly better about my rising property taxes in CT – though I rarely read the front section – need to keep my blood pressure in check. But I did read the cover story this past Sunday and it did sicken me. Twisting stories to fit their version of the truth – selling it like it was gospel.
FbL – I do believe their intent is evil. They want to smear anything to do with the current Adminstration – BDS is so evident in everything they write.
Kris,
agreed. I think their intent is obvious. How else do you explain their constant and consistant spin against the GWOT and the administration?
jim c
As Flatlander alludes, the NYT is a regional legacy news source playing to a restricted audience. The sooner people wake up to this currrent and future reality the better. Can’t we all just ignore it? Only then it will go away.
But No…o, people like my ex – wife and Kris keep on buying it , but for the ‘best’ of reasons, they assure me. And folks like Lex keep quoting it. Have to keep an eye on the enemy camp, it’s a common denominator of discussion and all that crap. But ask yourselves, really ponder it: How many of our soldiers and Iraqis died because you helped keep that beast breathing?
Don’t miss this story on another kind of violent vets
Hilarious DF!
DF, that is pure gold!!
I thought that one of the differences between a disciplined soldier and a barbarian is, that the former kills when ordered to do so and not otherwise, regardless of provocation, and the latter, the barbarian, kills when he feels like doing so.
I think the actual numbers prove that our troops are disciplined soldiers.
I am *so* glad those NYT folks live in a place where they are not allowed to have firearms; I do think that they might be the kind of folks who’d shoot one, because they feel like it, having no discipline in their heads
Cottus – not sure I appreciate the insinuation in that. It’s revenue from the advertiser’s that keeps that beast breathing, not my measly $5.00 on Sunday. The NYT will continue publishing it’s – whatever you want to call it – long after all of us here are gone.
If you want to talk about who is killing our soldiers by supporting the NYT, talk to organizations like moveon.org…