I'm with I.F. Stone when he wrote, "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you’re going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins."
I'd rather go down fighting than surrender at the first shot.
They are pushing a false narrative. That's not biased, that's conscious misinformation. But then, no-one cares about lefty misinformation, until it gets people murdered.
The vertical line in the original NYT chart doesn’t make sense even if it is shifted to the left, since the growth in the number of homicides did not increase linearly between the end of 2019 and the end of 2020, but a line connects these two data points. To make their chart compatible with the introduction of a vertical line at May 25, 2020, they would at least need to add one more data point, representing the growth in the number of homicides from 1/1/20 to 5/25/20.
You may have mentioned this previously but also would the police killings/homicides ratio be more relevant than the fact that police killings continued to rise after homicides had begun going down? If we accept that a more homicidal environment means more average danger to the cops.
"the increase in black car crash death rate remained elevated..."
Should have left out "increase in" here--it isn't accelerating. Or leave out "rate" to follow their (misleading) graph. Did they ever give any absolute numbers of police killings, or would the 15% change in such low numbers have given the game away?
IIRC from your decades-long graphs, it was unusually low in the Teens (or was that for Hispanics?), so maybe we're back to a normal rate.
I wonder whether the grudging small improvement was partly motivated by your letter and their realizing they were not getting away with the deception. Either way, good for you!
I’m just so happy to have Steve to read and challenge the NYT B.S. Despite their lack of any credibility they are still the paper of record for most of the world. It’s where every leftist politician, media personality and other media get their news. Steve and a growing number of independent journalists are taking them to task. Bravo.
Actually, while they will issue their own "corrections," they will not allow readers to correct data or editorials or news. In some absurdly inaccurate cases, they will publish a letter to the editor, but you must phrase the correction as "additional information." You may not say they were wrong.
I wonder if The New York Times did graphs in 1932-34 showing that Holodomor wasn't so bad because there was a big drop-of in 1934. Fewer Ukrainians to kill.
So here's the deal.
They are showing this graph on an annual basis, and showing percentage changes.
But they're not showing the actual number of deaths.
You know, and I know, that there are HUGE disparities in these numbers, before we even get into aspects of "justified" homicide, yadda yadda.
I am not amused with their bullshit.
They’re pushing a narrative, rather then reporting.
They are showing percentage changes.
Percentage of what? Change from when to when?
And how does the NYT turn a 10% rise in homicides in 2024 into 'other homicides fell'?
They're all percentage changes from 2015.
Never engage with the Left. It's futile.
Nonsense. Steve did everyone a favor by emailing NYT.
We should always engage with (aka challenge) the Left. Not doing so, is conceding the ground to them.
The New York Times has 11 million paying subscribers, including most of the professional journalists in the English-speaking world.
It's influential.
It is incompetent to take NYT seriously as a source of information.
Just like Harvard is influential...
Beating your head against a wall.
I'm with I.F. Stone when he wrote, "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you’re going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins."
I'd rather go down fighting than surrender at the first shot.
"Send me more Japs!"
The writer George Eliot(Maryanne Evans) wrote the same thing a century before more or less.
Great that they changed it.
Didn't it change it much and didn't mention that they did.
Can’t expect much from the people who put out the 1619 Project. On race, they’re simply very biased and pushing a narrative.
They are pushing a false narrative. That's not biased, that's conscious misinformation. But then, no-one cares about lefty misinformation, until it gets people murdered.
The vertical line in the original NYT chart doesn’t make sense even if it is shifted to the left, since the growth in the number of homicides did not increase linearly between the end of 2019 and the end of 2020, but a line connects these two data points. To make their chart compatible with the introduction of a vertical line at May 25, 2020, they would at least need to add one more data point, representing the growth in the number of homicides from 1/1/20 to 5/25/20.
You may have mentioned this previously but also would the police killings/homicides ratio be more relevant than the fact that police killings continued to rise after homicides had begun going down? If we accept that a more homicidal environment means more average danger to the cops.
"the increase in black car crash death rate remained elevated..."
Should have left out "increase in" here--it isn't accelerating. Or leave out "rate" to follow their (misleading) graph. Did they ever give any absolute numbers of police killings, or would the 15% change in such low numbers have given the game away?
IIRC from your decades-long graphs, it was unusually low in the Teens (or was that for Hispanics?), so maybe we're back to a normal rate.
Hispanic car crashes were low from 2008's financial crash to about 2021.
Black car crashes started going up after Ferguson in 2014.
That's one lazy correction. The DEI is starting to show at the Times.
Starting? Jayson Blair was more than 20 years ago.
In 2025 he would have been promoted.
Congratulations on influencing them to change the figure!
I wonder whether the grudging small improvement was partly motivated by your letter and their realizing they were not getting away with the deception. Either way, good for you!
So the NYT produces a line graph for this data, where 2019,2020,2021,2022 etc are represented by points.
Time is continuous data, not discrete data.
A bar chart would be better.
Unless a) you wanted to fool people or b) you have no idea about statistics.
I yell at high school kids at science fairs about letting the software connect the data dots and implying something that is not shown in the data.
They want to fool Steve
The lying never stops.
I’m just so happy to have Steve to read and challenge the NYT B.S. Despite their lack of any credibility they are still the paper of record for most of the world. It’s where every leftist politician, media personality and other media get their news. Steve and a growing number of independent journalists are taking them to task. Bravo.
Actually, while they will issue their own "corrections," they will not allow readers to correct data or editorials or news. In some absurdly inaccurate cases, they will publish a letter to the editor, but you must phrase the correction as "additional information." You may not say they were wrong.
The graphs are difficult to understand because nothing is explained in English but with lines that say nothing. How can a person analyze such mess?
I wonder if The New York Times did graphs in 1932-34 showing that Holodomor wasn't so bad because there was a big drop-of in 1934. Fewer Ukrainians to kill.
The NYT is a Democratic Party propaganda outlet. Fools opine that its real news.