4 ms·

"3 people died in a car accident today, marking 4720 this year alone. Car accidents are up 12% since last year when city council rejected the proposed budget in

"3 people died in a car accident today, marking 4720 this year alone. Car accidents are up 12% since last year when city council rejected the proposed budget increase for more snowplows and ice control to meet the city's growing transportation needs." "3 people died in a car accident today, marking 4720 this year alone. Car accidents overall have jumped 12% since AG John Smith added driving-without-a-license to the city's informal do-not-prosecute list." In our toy example, all of these could be simultaneously true, and the data given does not support one cause over the other. Note that the "due not" need not be present, the intended implication is still clear. (For bonus points, read these examples again, imagining that overall driving increased by about 12% due to people working from home less.)

nathan_compton 4y ago
Sure, there are a million consistent imaginary stories. My point is that _if_ a journalist has a reasonable sense that the speed limit regulations are related to the article in question or that the reader may want to know about them, then they should mention them. Indeed, all these other imaginary scenarios should also be mentioned if there is a reasonable case they may be involved in the increased rate of accidents. The idea that the journalist should present only the directly related "bare facts" is so silly that I can't even take the suggestion as coming from a place of good faith.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  If, in your own words, there's a million consistent imaginary stories, which one gets the special designation of "reasonable"? If there are multiple possible stories that are all plausible explanations of the same data, then how is picking just your favorite one and reporting it adding value?
  - nathan_compton 4y ago
    That isn't what a reporter should do, though. They should report on the news and related information, not just their favorite narrative. I'm not defending shitty reporting, just pointing out that the "bare facts" approach is ridiculous. Knowing stuff is hard, reporting on stuff is hard, understanding what is read is hard. The solution to these problems is not, nor could it be, restricting one's attention to the "bare facts." Indeed, these are often quite hard to identify and agree upon. We should expect and cultivate a little sophistication in ourselves and our fellow citizens.

nathan_compton 4y ago

Sure, there are a million consistent imaginary stories. My point is that _if_ a journalist has a reasonable sense that the speed limit regulations are related to the article in question or that the reader may want to know about them, then they should mention them. Indeed, all these other imaginary scenarios should also be mentioned if there is a reasonable case they may be involved in the increased rate of accidents. The idea that the journalist should present only the directly related "bare facts" is so silly that I can't even take the suggestion as coming from a place of good faith.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
If, in your own words, there's a million consistent imaginary stories, which one gets the special designation of "reasonable"? If there are multiple possible stories that are all plausible explanations of the same data, then how is picking just your favorite one and reporting it adding value?
- nathan_compton 4y ago
  That isn't what a reporter should do, though. They should report on the news and related information, not just their favorite narrative. I'm not defending shitty reporting, just pointing out that the "bare facts" approach is ridiculous. Knowing stuff is hard, reporting on stuff is hard, understanding what is read is hard. The solution to these problems is not, nor could it be, restricting one's attention to the "bare facts." Indeed, these are often quite hard to identify and agree upon. We should expect and cultivate a little sophistication in ourselves and our fellow citizens.