dimanche, juillet 08, 2007

Dramatically Fewer Murders: Coming to A Country Near You

Eugene, my friend. Take your two hands out in front of you. With your own two hands, you can make the mathematical symbols for Greater and Lesser.

These mathematical concepts are not subjective. Even if you work them into your column and put your opinions around it.

In today's column
, he talks about the beating of an Indian man at the Juneteenth riot. Not racially motivated, by the way. So Eugene is preaching to us about how this victim has gotten accustomed to our uber violent society. Unlike in his home country where there are "dramatically fewer" murders.

Dan at the Early Spin
brings us this graphic:

India is the most murderous country worldwide at 37,170 murders per year, compared with the US which has a dramatically fewer 12,658.

How many in Eugene's audience will likely accept his presentation of the "facts", no questions asked? Dramatically higher than I want to think about.

How many Indian citizens will write to the JS, asking them to hold Eugene accountable?
Dramatically fewer, I presume.

How hard will the JS come down on Eugene for presenting nonfactual information?
Not at all.

The larger question for me, is how and why Eugene can habitually and predictably step in it all the time. He always does. And he always looks just as clueless each and every time. If he was my employee, there would have been some type of review process by now. I'm not a journalist, but even in my yearly review, "judgment" is a category.


Blogger capper said...

Not that I am a big fan of Kane, but let's be honest. India has three times the murder rate, but what, four or five times the population? Which meant that the U.S. has a higher murder per capita rate. This could make it seem like a smaller murder rate.

9:40 PM, juillet 08, 2007  
Blogger Phelony Jones said...

We aren't talking about per capita here. That's relative math. This graphic and these numbers refer to amount of lives lost. No matter how you look at it, more people are killed there per year.

9:45 PM, juillet 08, 2007  
Blogger capper said...

If you are talking strictly syntax, of course you are correct. Areas with higher populations will have higher murder rates, as well as almost any other stat you would like to measure. I guess I was trying to look at it with perspective, and not parsing for errata.

9:51 PM, juillet 08, 2007  
Blogger Phelony Jones said...

The graphic refers to total number of lives lost per year. That is the subject.

9:52 PM, juillet 08, 2007  
Blogger The Asian Badger said...

Phel...you have to have meaningful comparisons...murder/1000 would do it.

I'm not defending Kane but you have to compare apples to apples.

11:59 PM, juillet 08, 2007  
Blogger Dad29 said...

AB's right, Phel.

India has the world's second-largest total population. You can expect a few more murders (and robberies, etc.) with those numbers.

8:32 AM, juillet 09, 2007  
Blogger Phelony Jones said...

I want to be very clear about something. I am not arguing about the rate. If you want me to argue about the rate, I will create another post. For the purposes of this post, I am talking strictly about a difference in actual dead bodies.

9:18 AM, juillet 09, 2007  
Blogger Real Debate said...

Phel is exactly correct. Kane did not per capita anything in his column.

Jump on him not Jones.

9:25 AM, juillet 09, 2007  

Enregistrer un commentaire

Links to this post:

Créer un lien

<< Home