How does large news media shape how we interpret data?
The first thing I noticed was how sources cited in the beginning of the article continuously held that there was not a list of factors to pinpoint that led to the increase but then as you keep reading another source spouts of a list of reasons for the increase. And within this list, they all stem from anti-police rhetoric and attitudes. This is a dangerous and speculative and does little other than place ideas in the readers minds. Another aspect of the article that stuck out to me was how they framed the "sharp increase". If you manipulate the timeline of the graph (which is very easy to do on the FBI's website), you can see that crime is SO LOW compared to the 1990s. The Times article made it seem like crime and murders had had such an increase, and while they did not omit the level of crime today compared to the 90s, they buried that information in random one-liners beside "trusted sources" bashing reforms.
Overall, this article is a dumpster fire of contradictory information and if someone does not critically read the article and then look at the data themselves, then they can very well believe the interpretation of the data set out by the Times. Headlines and renowned news sources shape the way readers interpret and understand data and it is dangerous and harmful to portray facts in such a way.
Alex Karakatsanis Twitter Thread
Scott Hechinger Twitter Thread
Comments
Post a Comment