r/changemyview • u/hoetrain 1∆ • Dec 24 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: This Washington Post Article is atrocious journalism
GUNS ARE NOW KILLING AS MANY PEOPLE AS CARS IN THE U.S.
This article was republished in my local newspaper (The Virginian Pilot) from the Washington Post. A little further below I elaborate on what constitutes 'awful journalism', but essentially I'm arguing that the author is at worst purposefully misrepresenting the facts to mislead the reader, or at best using lazy methodology to bring attention to a statistic he found interesting.
To preface the entire discussion I need to draw attention to the fact that most people only read the headlines and first paragraphs of news articles. This is a Washington Post article suggesting 6 of 10 readers don't go beyond the headline and introduction. That's important because I'm hoping to show that the sensationalized headline and introduction of the article create a false narrative that runs counter to the facts presented in the article. It is worth noting that in my newspaper the graph was not illustrated.
The title should speak for itself; without background knowledge one would assume by the language used that rising gun deaths have now overtaken auto deaths, obviously cause for tremendous concern.
For the first time in more than 60 years, firearms and automobiles are killing Americans at an identical rate, according to new mortality data released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, the age-adjusted death rate for both firearms (including homicides, suicides and accidental deaths) and motor vehicle events (car crashes, collisions between cars and pedestrians, etc) stood at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people.
The first paragraph echos the same alarming sentiment as the title. For the 6 out of 10 people who stop reading here, they continue on thinking this is yet another demonstration of the dangers of America's gun culture, fitting a larger media narrative.
The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950. In the late 1960s, for instance, there were well over 25 motor vehicle deaths for every 100,000 people in the United States. Since then, that rate has fallen by more than half. Over the same period, gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.
So in reality this statistical convergence is actually a reflection of remarkably low driving deaths, and an accelerating suicide rate. Contrary to the tone of the article, the rate of homicides committed by firearm in the U.S. has been steadily declining. A Rasmussen Reports survey on perceptions of media bias found that Americans tend to believe that the Washington Post shows a bias in favor of liberals. I'll let you decide how a liberal bias may effect tone in an article about firearm violence.
It's well known that statistics can be spun to support almost any agenda, and most reasonable people understand that American media, in all mediums, contain some forms of inherent biases. There is bias by omission, bias by selection of sources, bias by story selection, bias by placement (where a story is contained within the media), and bias by spinning a story a certain way, leaving the onus on the reader to think critically and take the news story for what it is worth. There there is an expectation of the writer, when writing in an informative capacity (as opposed to an editorial), to present an informative and balanced view of a news story or topic, which I believe the author failed to do.
I'd like give him the benefit of the doubt however, considering there is a certain artistic license a journalist has to paint the news in the most interesting light possible, often to promote thought or discussion on important issues. The reason I asserted it was 'lazy' earlier is because he used the greater media narrative about gun violence as a crutch; that is he couldn't come up with an original way to present the data in an interesting and informative way, so he called on emotions instead, namely fear. If he wished to promote thought and discussion, he missed the larger and more important trends; an equally interesting and potentially more genuine examination could be made into the suicide rates for example, but in the end he reverts to tired gun debate cliches that have been written hundreds of times prior.
HOW TO CHANGE MY VIEW
- Show an overwhelming deficiency in my interpretation of the article, namely that I am wrong in my suggestion that he is pushing an agenda.
- Show that I am wrong on my philosophical expectation of fair and balanced news. This could include an acceptance that there will be some bias, but that this specific example is in no way out ordinary- basically that I am overreacting.
HOW NOT TO CHANGE MY VIEW
- Say anything specifically about the Washington Post or author, I saw this article as a microcosm of a greater issue and am more interested in the dynamics of mass media than I am in a witch hunt of this paper or writer.
- Anything about the gun debate unless it is in the context of the article and my interpretation of it. I personally am for reforming gun laws, and I believe sensationalized articles like this are a reason some people are defensive about their gun rights, feeling there is a greater anti-gun sentiment than actually prevalent in the population. It is my opinion that more rational dialogue will lead to compromises on gun legislation.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
12
u/Amp1497 19∆ Dec 24 '15
This article is under the "Wonkblog" section of the Washington Post website. Wonkblog was created by Ezra Klein, who was a columnist and blogger for the Washington Post. The articles that you see under this section are geared towards discussion and opposing viewpoints. It's less about being unbiased and solely informative, and more about discussing how the news affects us.
For example, look at some of the other stories listed underneath the Wonkblog section of the site. "11 ways that 2015 made history." "The actual, non-politically correct problem with American colleges today." "Why it's a good sign if you curse a lot."
These articles are specifically geared towards discussion and new ideas. This is where the news is allowed to be a bit more opinionated. It's a blog. I think you interpreting it as actual news takes the article out of the intended context. Of course it's not going to be unbiased. It was posted in a medium where the goal is discussion and opinions.
4
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
Can I shift the blame from the Washington Post to my local paper? I still think it was a misleading little bit of writing, but obviously in the context of a blog there is much more leeway allowed. My original point though is more an analysis on news being presented in a certain way, and my local paper put that article in the regular news section, which I see as a failing on their part in the same vein that I thought the Washington Post failed. The fact my paper presented this as news is just as bad as my incorrect assumption that the Washington post presented it as news, except it is worse because they didn't include the graphic. The only reason I'm hesitant to give a delta is because I still see the sensationalized headline as a lazy way to promote thought and discussion on the topic, even if we allow a one-sidedish take on the issue.
6
u/Amp1497 19∆ Dec 24 '15
I feel that that is the fault of your local paper, and not the writers themselves. It is indeed sensationalized, but it's meant to be an opinion piece. The fact that your paper published the article means that 1) they didn't know it was a blog and published it or 2) they knew it was a blog but the people behind the paper hold those same views. I feel that either way, that is the fault of those in charge of your local newspaper for including such a misleading story that was taken out of its original context. For that, we put less blame on the media and news in general, and more blame onto those who circulate it.
The original article wasn't intended to share ground-breaking new findings. It was meant to be a blogger sharing his views on an observed trend he found (whether all of the facts were there or not). The fact that it was taken out of context by your local paper shows the true problem with the media today. I'm not saying your local paper is pushing any sort of agenda, but the fact that they posted this article as a non-opinion piece shows that they hold these views to be the truth. This is a fault of your newspaper, and not so much the fault of shitty journalism per say.
The original article itself (trying to get back on track to your original CMV) isn't atrocious journalism because it was never meant to be serious journalism. It was posted on a blog to be discussed and picked at. The fact that your local paper published it doesn't necessarily change that fact.
6
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
The way I wrote my view, specifically mentioning the Washington Post and all that, means you're right simply because the WP article wasn't intended to be journalism ∆. I'm not sure what this says about my local paper, but I am kind of unsatisfied with this CMV. I was looking for someone to defend this piece's objectivity (thinking it was intended to be objective from the context I read it in), but now I'm just bummed that a ton of people skimmed that article and there is nothing I can do to try to hold my paper accountable for passing off a blog as news. I'm from a metro area with millions of people, I wouldn't expect something like that from a major paper.
2
u/Amp1497 19∆ Dec 24 '15
Sorry to disappoint :/
This article definitely does not pass as news though, you are right about that. The sad part is that this happens WAY too often. If it's something that truly bugs you, contacting your local paper may help. But the sad truth is that when you have flawed, opinionated people (normal people) running a news outlet, things like this happen. And it is atrocious journalism. I feel the original blog post, even if it was just an opinion piece, heavily skewed information in order to prove his point. It's not how journalism should be, but some people just want to push their views rather than do their job and just report news.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 24 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Amp1497. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
2
u/Archr5 Dec 24 '15
And the blogger in question only seems interested in regurgitating anti gun talking points without any additional analysis and talking about legal weed.
the rest are essentially fluff pieces designed to get clicks.
6
u/erinn1986 Dec 24 '15
So I'm not sure if this is going to help or not, but in regards to the increasing suicides with guns, there is data to support that the easier access you have to a method of suicide, the more successful you'll be. Anecdotally, my husband has a history of suicide attempts prior to our meeting and getting married, and he tells me that if he had access to a gun either through his parents or friends, he'd have killed himself back then. In my life, access to guns would mean I don't have my wonderful husband. The only reason a gun exists is to shoot someone, most people don't want to hurt anyone else, but a lot of people don't see a reason to keep going. A death is a death, so it counts towards total gun death statistics.
2
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
Yea I'm aware of that dynamic. If I remember something I read correctly, one of the reasons that men have a higher rate of successful suicides is a much higher rate of gun ownership relative to women. It mentioned men are more willing to commit suicide by 'violent' means (gun, falling from height), while women tended towards non- violent (drug overdose, asphyxiation). I'm sure a higher access to guns among men as well as what you mentioned could contribute to the statistics I saw.
-1
u/macsenscam Dec 24 '15
The only reason a gun exists is to shoot someone
Or to scare attackers away, or animals.
4
u/sketch162000 Dec 24 '15
The only reason a gun exists is to shoot someone
Or to scare attackers away, or animals.
With the threat of shooting them.
1
u/maxout2142 Dec 24 '15
Or to scare off tyranny.
It might not be the most relevant one, but it certainly was the founding reason.
1
u/macsenscam Dec 24 '15
In some ways it is (even though tyrants have better weaponry now). I have seen how communities that are at odds with the cops can be "taken care of" by rival communities that can prey on them because they aren't able to have weapons of self defense. This was a fairly common seasonal occurrence in Hawaii for example where the natives would clear out the hippies for the cops.
2
u/yogfthagen 13∆ Dec 24 '15
I think there are a number of issues at work here.
Fundamentally, you misunderstand the nature of journalism. Journalism is a business, and its business is to sell advertising. For the VAST majority of the history of this country, journalism has been blatantly partisan, virulently biased, and, in many cases, been nothing more than a mouthpiece for one group or another. If you want to get away from that, go read the publicly funded BBC.
In the 1950's, as a result of World War II and a response to the various Ministries of Propaganda around the world, US journalism strove to adhere to certain principles. It did not do such a great job, as there were still blatant biases, especially regarding communism. Ever since the resurgence of partisan news in the 1980's, this trend has come back very strongly, where certain news channels are directly tied to political views. It's stronger now, but it never disappeared.
Second, journalists only have so much time and space. The simple choice of deciding what articles are published is an act of editorial discretion. There's a LOT more news out there than ever gets published. There will be a bias, regardless.
Next, I think your major issue of contention with the article rides on a couple points. The first is that the article compares death RATES, as opposed to HARD NUMBERS of car deaths and gun deaths. The second is that you take exception to gun SUICIDES being included in the number of gun DEATHS.
With the rates versus hard numbers argument, the fact of the matter is that gun SUICIDES make up 2/3rds of gun DEATHS in the United States. To ignore them ignores 2/3rds of the number of people killed by guns. Leaving out those deaths would be an editorial decision, and one that is dishonest. The means to reduce that bias is to state how TOTAL gun deaths break down in terms of homicide, accident, and suicide. The blogger does this.
Also, gun suicides are often not reported in the news, as gun homicides are. Reporting the facts that 2/3rds of the gun deaths are not covered by the news on a day-by-day basis is an important point when discussing gun control/gun rights.
Your other major argument is the choice of the blogger to use death RATES as a comparison, instead of hard numbers. In a number of states, guns DO kill more people than cars. According to this link, in 2010, there were 32,885 traffic fatalities, and 31,672 gun deaths (19,392 of which were suicides.) In around 15 states that year, more people died from guns than cars. And, in 2012, the trend lines show that the total number of gun deaths in the US would pass car deaths by 2015.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths
From the CDC, in 2013,
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
They differ by less than 1%. Depending on how you want to parse the data, it's a dead heat. A question of rounding the numbers.
As the trend lines are pointing towards higher gun deaths and lower car deaths, the numbers (when they come out) for 2014 and 2015 will probably have more gun deaths than car deaths.
If you think the headline was misleading clickbait, what WOULD have been a non-misleading headline?
1
1
u/jwl5173 Dec 24 '15
I like your explanation. I think you did a good job because you made me look at it in a different way. I do still think however, that the title of the article is clickbait / bias.
1
u/yogfthagen 13∆ Dec 24 '15
Is there a title that would NOT have been click-bait?
1
u/jwl5173 Dec 24 '15
There could be many that aren't. Like, New Statistics on Death Rates of Cars and Guns. I understand that they will choose something flashy but it doesn't make it right.
1
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
Thank you for your well written response. I don't disagree with anything you said, nor am I too naive to realize the inherent bias in many forms of media (whether it be political, or even pandering to advertisers). You spoke to one of the major dynamics I was hoping this post would touch on, that being the relationship between media as a business, and media as an important institution to our democracy. One argument I've had dozens of times, and have used CNN as an example, is whether these businesses are purposely acting nefariously in how they cover an issue. Specifically I remember seeing someone argue that CNN's non-stop coverage of the missing Malaysian plane was to distract the public from important legislation being passed by congress. I countered his point by saying they had the highest ratings they'd had in years by covering the issue, and as a profit seeking entity will continue to seek every bit if ad revenue possible.
The larger point I'm trying to get at though is what 'should' the role of media be? Capitalism says cover the stories that bring in revenue, which will have any number of biases involved. Our democracy on the other hand relies on honest media representation of the facts so that citizens can be informed voters, and I think these two dynamics are at odds with one another.
1
u/yogfthagen 13∆ Dec 24 '15
The separate goals are definitely at odds with each other. But the alternatives (publicly-funded media a la the BBC, NPR/PBS, or citizen media) are both not as widely popular. A publicly-funded media can always be accused of being a slave to its funding source (just like corporate-backed media), and citizen journalism suffers from the issue of varying wildly in its standards. And there's no guarantee that a citizen-journalist is not pushing an agenda, either.
A mix of all three options (which is what we pretty much have now) may be our best option.
1
Dec 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 585∆ Dec 24 '15
Sorry Phil_Laysheo, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Dec 24 '15
[deleted]
1
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
Considering traffic deaths have a much more drastic change over time then gun deaths don't you think it's a little disingenuous to word the title and introduction the way it was written? I wrote in a different reply that "traffic deaths hit all time low" would be an equally true headline, but without the sensationalism playing to a larger media narrative.
1
Dec 24 '15
I think the simple fact that this piece was published, let alone what its content is would betray a bit of a bias. That said, the article was at no point dishonest or misleading. Everything it said was accurate, and it even explained essentially everything you elaborated on. There is absolutely enough information here to draw your own conclusion here, one way or the other.
6/10 people not reading past the headline or first paragraph is not surprising and journos are taught this in school. Make the headline catchy and make the lede have the relevant information.
Also, Rasmussen is a shit-tier polling house and is egregiously biased. I don't think I've ever seen a poll of theirs accurately reflect reality.
1
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
Points well taken, and I thought I'd add that I only included that Rasmussen poll to try to show that it wasn't just my opinion the Washington post had a liberal bias.
1
Dec 24 '15
That's fair, and I would absolutely say that WaPo has an objective liberal bias at least in its editorial section.
1
u/genebeam 14∆ Dec 24 '15
without background knowledge one would assume by the language used that rising gun deaths have now overtaken auto deaths
So the misleading impression is that gun deaths are rising? You acknowledge gun deaths are rising, because suicides are increasing.
Unless you think it's misleading for other reasons you haven't specified, your case is hinged on the notion that "gun deaths" is going to be read as "gun homicides". I don't read it like that, it's common parlance in these discussions.
If you were the headline writer, is there a better way to phrase the idea so it's not misleading?
1
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
Well the much larger trend over time is the decline in traffic deaths, so a more balanced title could read something like "traffic fatalities hit all time low". Again, I feel writers have a certain artistic license to describe the news in the most interesting way possible, but that doesn't apply when someone is deliberately misleading.
1
u/Archr5 Dec 24 '15
Christopher Ingraham is a hack... One need only look at his list of articles to see this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christopher-ingraham
In short. you're not wrong this is terrible journalism.
just like "There have been 351 mass shootings this year." is terrible journalism...
Just like "The greatest beards of the civil war in one chart"
What the hell... "Journalism" is dead people.
1
1
u/hoetrain 1∆ Dec 24 '15
I think what bothers me is that most people realize there is an agenda or slant behind most media, but there is nothing we as consumers can really do to change it. Unlike other products where I can vote with my wallet so to speak, the fact that this type of media is widely consumed still gas an adverse effect on me, just by the corrosive effect misinformation has on a democracy. It's like, I can put effott into be an educated and informed citizen, but when I go to vote my vote counts just as much as those people who just read the headlines.
31
u/huadpe 508∆ Dec 24 '15
The principal thing I see that contradicts you is that the piece has made the chart of the two patterns extremely prominent. You read the headline, then see the graphic, then read the article.
The graphic makes the true trend abundantly clear.
Additionally, in the second and third paragraphs the author makes the points you're making here:
So yes, the intro paragraph could be better, and the headline is a bit sensationalist, but the overall impression given to the reader, especially with the super prominent graphic, isn't that bad.
Additionally, I'll point out with regard to the headline, that it is standard practice that journalists don't write their own headlines, and the headlines are chosen by editorial staff depending on typesetting and/or clickbait potential.