3 ms·

Oh my Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri are going to be smug. They did an excellent podcast on what a joke this whole thing is in October: Teaser: https://pod

Oh my Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri are going to be smug. They did an excellent podcast on what a joke this whole thing is in October: Teaser: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-crime-panic-teaser/id1651876897?i=1000632676408 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-c... Subscribers only (worth it imho): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-crime-panic/id1651876897?i=1000632623232 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-c...

borkt 3y ago
No thanks, id rather not pay to listen to smug people in a bubble pat themselves on the back by referencing media which exists wholly within their bubble.
- schmichael 3y ago
  I totally respect that decision and mostly stay away from partisan or rage bait media myself. There's 3 reasons I make an exception for If Books Could Kill: 1. Entertainment value - their banter is just funny. I don't have to agree with 100% of what they say to just enjoy funny banter. 2. They care about Methodology - Michael Hobbes in particular is great at pointing out when news media misrepresents a study by drawing conclusions the study's methodology in no way supports. For this episode talking about how terrible crime statistics in America often are is relevant. Which leads me to #3... 3. They just read the source material. Most of this story is based on just reading the original "ORC" report and showing how devoid of substantiated facts it was. Sure, some types of crime are up! Crime in some places is up! They don't deny that, but they contextualize it. The report that started the national media cycle is quite silly when examined directly.
junofan 3y ago
Retail theft is up 64% in my city, and we had to install frosted window film after some break-ins. I don’t think it’s a joke.
- schmichael 3y ago
  What I appreciate about this episode is that they don't deny some crime statistics are up in some places. They don't deny that! What they do is add the context and nuance the national media coverage and political battles have lacked. For example one statistic that they cover changed dramatically because the reporting criteria changed. Human behavior may not have changed in the least, but the statistic suddenly became sensational because of how it was calculated. The worst part is that it's clearly impossible in that case to know if human behavior did change! By changing what they measured they ruined any opportunity to make a meaningful comparison.

borkt 3y ago

No thanks, id rather not pay to listen to smug people in a bubble pat themselves on the back by referencing media which exists wholly within their bubble.

schmichael 3y ago
I totally respect that decision and mostly stay away from partisan or rage bait media myself. There's 3 reasons I make an exception for If Books Could Kill: 1. Entertainment value - their banter is just funny. I don't have to agree with 100% of what they say to just enjoy funny banter. 2. They care about Methodology - Michael Hobbes in particular is great at pointing out when news media misrepresents a study by drawing conclusions the study's methodology in no way supports. For this episode talking about how terrible crime statistics in America often are is relevant. Which leads me to #3... 3. They just read the source material. Most of this story is based on just reading the original "ORC" report and showing how devoid of substantiated facts it was. Sure, some types of crime are up! Crime in some places is up! They don't deny that, but they contextualize it. The report that started the national media cycle is quite silly when examined directly.

junofan 3y ago

Retail theft is up 64% in my city, and we had to install frosted window film after some break-ins. I don’t think it’s a joke.

schmichael 3y ago
What I appreciate about this episode is that they don't deny some crime statistics are up in some places. They don't deny that! What they do is add the context and nuance the national media coverage and political battles have lacked. For example one statistic that they cover changed dramatically because the reporting criteria changed. Human behavior may not have changed in the least, but the statistic suddenly became sensational because of how it was calculated. The worst part is that it's clearly impossible in that case to know if human behavior did change! By changing what they measured they ruined any opportunity to make a meaningful comparison.