Showcasing stunts and neglecting statistics

A New York Times article today recreates Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia with all the sense of theatricality of the live event. There is no attempt by the reporter to present the discussion neutrally, but her choice to begin the article with an understatement that reads with some sense of sarcasm seems to have captured the spirit of most of those who attended the talk. The inclusion of President Bush’s comment that he does not think he would have invited Ahmadinejad to speak underscores the talk as a stunt or an overly gratuitous showing by Columbia President Bollinger to showcase his institution’s intense respect for freedom of speech.

An article in The Times of London focuses on British troops’ role in freeing two kidnapped Italians but neglects certain other aspects of the report. The article is very detailed in its description of the dramatic rescue and is sure to note that Italian forces asked specifically for help from the respected Special Boat Service. However, it leaves the story of the Italians’ initial capture until the final paragraph and then only offers a vague explanation for their potential handover to the Taliban as political collateral that is not even attributed to a particular source. For someone who had not been following the story, this would seem like an important detail to recap or, if no concrete answer had been determined, to be explained for its lack of certainty.

The Washington Post’s article on the FBI’s report that violent crime has increased this year leaves room for more explanation. The article gives all the relevant statistics, breaking down the rise in violent crime and the crime rate (and distinguishing between the two). However, it does not disclose where the biggest increases occurred, nor does it offer any explanation for the sudden increase in crime since 2005, which it notes is the first time there has been a significant increase since 1993.

A Boston Globe article also discloses data findings without explaining the discrepancies they raise. The article notes that two different housing reports—one released by the Warren Group, which gathers real estate data, and one by the Massachusetts Association of Realtors—found opposite trends. The Warren Group showed a decrease in the median cost of a one-family home and in overall sales, while the Association of Realtors found an increase. To say only that “the realtors’ group…uses a different methodology to capture data” is somewhat baffling when the results are in opposition to one another. Some attribution for this ought to be given, whether by a quote from an outside source commenting on the differences or by a brief description of the two methodologies used.