2 ms·
The New Yorker themselves corrected it from "the average classroom had forty-six students" to "as many as forty-six students". They published a "fact", in the l
by apsec112 6y ago
The New Yorker themselves corrected it from "the average classroom had forty-six students" to "as many as forty-six students". They published a "fact", in the lead paragraph, that they themselves eventually agreed was wrong. How is that "taking claims out of context"?
- EdwardDiego 6y agoDid you read my comment? 1) Author contrasted claims made to _national_ averages, not _LA_ averages. 2) I agree with you that they got it wrong, I even said as such: > However, finding out actual figures for LA schools is hard, as you have differing figures published by differing sites, based on sources who are on either side of a dispute that involves class sizes. That said, based on this one I found, it looks like the average isn't 46, that's more of an outlier, but neither is it in the "most have a number of students that start with two. More rarely it's a one or three". However, the author's assertions of _how they got it wrong_, are, from a cursory reading, also misleading.
- edbob 6y agoI don't see any assertions of "how they got it wrong" in the article, at least about the class sizes. The article states that the number was wrong, that it was obviously wrong, and investigates how the mistake was "corrected". The article is not concerned with "how they got it wrong" at all, only "how they corrected it". The obviousness of the error is brought up because it's relevant to these bullet points: "Both correction notices are notably vague as to how bad the errors were" and "They don’t seem to have reviewed the teacher strike piece for other mistakes".