NYT: All the racial-profiling data that’s fit to screw up
First, read this NYT correction:
An article on Nov. 21 about a Rand Corporation study on street stops by the New York Police Department referred incorrectly at some points to an overall figure and misstated the number of individual officers who were found to be disproportionately more likely to stop whites. There were 508,540 street stops in 2006 — not 508,540 people stopped — and 13 officers, not 9, tended to stop whites more often. The article also misstated the finding of a racial disparity in the handing out of summonses. Whites are more likely — not less — to receive them
Now read Tom Maguire’s uncovering of The Orwellian Times’ botched cover-up.
Oh, have I mentioned NYT’s stock lately:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: New York Times
Patterico
» Why We Need to Link Andrew Sullivan
JustOneMinute
» Seeing Is Not BelievingJustOneMinute
» Sweetheart DealWeekly Standard
» Anatomy of a SmearNewsBusters.org
» Rumor That Palin Called Obama 'Sambo' Spreading Across InternetNewsBusters.org
» The Swift-Skirting of Sarah PalinHot Air
» Quotes of the day
NY Times: Committed to Failure. It’s what we do! That should be their new mantra.
I guess they are just sticking to what they know…
Failure.
Looks like Pinch’s little ‘newspaper’ is continuing its death spiral…..the NYT..”all the news that’s $h!t.we print”
LOL, Glad I don’t own stock in any paper’s.
When someone get’s an attitude with the Police when their stopped they are more likley to have problem’s with them if you simply do what they ask, (that which is provided under law) you should not have a problem, but on the other hand if you don’t, they will do everything in the world to inconvienience you. Let the Police do their jobs.
Don’t you mean the New York SLIMES?
The NYT’s planned “surge” has failed…it’s pretty funny, actually. Having failed miserably to report accurately on Iraq, how can they be expected to accurately reflect information from their home city? At least they’re being consistant, right?
New York Slimes did you say?
It’s the NYT, what do you really expect?
Maybe they can send an Ace reporter over to the NYPD and find out what’s on Columbia’s security video.
Armigerous #3 OUTSTANDING post…
ACHefty #5 Honorable Mention.. a levinite ….
This could explain why their circulation continues to circle the drain. No surprises here.
Mr. Maguire’s hillarity is very well placed in this excerpt from the actual correction posted:
Gee thanks for the correction, folks. Do we not have even a wee bit of spelling and grammer under our tawdry belts? Proofreading anyone?
Have a look at the original article. The corrections make almost no difference to its conclusions.
Here’s a challenge: try doing this huff & puff over the ridiculous nightly misstatements from Fox News. You can get some hints here and here.
I stopped watching a few years ago when WMDs were being discovered in Iraq every night (and the false reports forgotten by the following morning).
…in other news, the NYPD has been found to give “stinkeye” to non-whites at a rate estimated by the editors and writers at this paper though not given in “old math” numbers, but intuited and displayed by a show of hands at last week’s diversity training seminar. Correction to follow.
Actual hand count assumed, due to past accuracy equivalencies, and projections…
It’s telling that you don’t even bother to link to the article in question, just the correction. How is one supposed to make any sort of informed judgement with absolutely no context?
Yes, some figures were wrong and that’s sloppy reporting and sloppy editing…you would hope you could expect more from the leading newspaper in country. But really, the figures make no difference to either the premise or the conclusion of the article. If anything the corrected figures further support the argument that while whites and blacks are pulled over at equal rates, whites are more likely to get a summons and blacks or more likely to be frisked.
The Times is a big, ripe target and it’s clear you enjoy shooting at it; that’s wonderful, but it’s just misleading to nitpick minor corrections such as these when every newspaper, blog, and magazine is guilty of the same crime from time to time.
If the New York Slimes told me the sky is blue and grass is green, I’d go out and check it for myself.
The only newspaper I buy anymore is the Sunday paper so I can check the classified ads and get the TV guide for that week. For actual news and information I check a few of my favorite blogs.
#13
Read this part…
It clearly states that there was evidence of racism against blacks in the original, then corrects it to read that there was no racism. That a pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say? Or do you still think Nifong got a bad rap?
I have a question, How many of these people committed previous crimes and how many time’s had they been stopped and frisked?
Okay, lgm, and JaHerer22 …what would make you happy? Whites getting frisked more, and then sent on their merry way, sans a summons? And then Blacks not getting frisked, but getting summons more?
You can’t win with these guys! If Blacks got more tickets than Whites, they’d cry “discrimination.” The study shows, at least to me, that police exercised a modicum of caution when contacting blacks on the street. How would YOU approach a group of youths, regardless of race, dressed like gangsters? I would want to ease my apprehension, by ensuring none of them were packing. Common sense, unless you’re anti-law enforcement!
The NYT article’s only purpose was to fan the fires of racial discrimination, not inform or educate their readers. They’ve reported from the gutters so long, it’s no wonder that now that’s their only viewpoint.
I think what lgm was saying - the conclusions of the original article were wrong, the conclusions of the corrected article are still wrong.
/sarc off
Is there any reference to the people’s behavior and attitude after they were stopped or any suspicious evidence or signs that prompted being frisked or arrested after being stopped?
conservativesRus
No, I think what he was saying is “conservatives” lie, and “liberal” flame fanners, like the NYT only tell the truth. On so on, and so on, ad infinitum! There is never a worthwhile P.O.V. from the right, because they lie, and that’s all we need to know!
From the article:
So no, the person’s behavior is not even considered a factor. Only his/her race.
Article headline reads:
Could just have easily been written as:
But that wouldn’t fit the narrative.
LGM said something. I didn’t notice as I was:
I G N O R I N G
H I M
Yep. Their stock is adjusting to “minor corrections” as well.
See what you have done Michelle? Thanks!
I wonder what would have to be out of whack for lgm to think it was a big deal? Those mistakes are very hefty indeed, and I would say that whites receiving MORE summons rather than the originally stated LESS significantly changes the outcome of the article. If the correct figures were originally used, I doubt this article would have made it to the printer because it wouldn’t be news that the NYPD treats everyone equally as they are supposed to.
OT lgm, since you didn’t see fit to post about the PLANTS at the Republican debate on that thread maybe you could here. Just asking since we all know you are here now.
It is strange that they never make mistakes the other way…hmmmm.
That’s correct right_on, and just to be fair they had their eyes closed while counting the show of hands…
d1carter said (#29):
I disagree. Both on the left and on the right, people take more notice of mistakes that go against them.
In the runup to the Iraq invasion, the NYTimes published front page article after front page article by Judith Miller claiming that inside the government people really were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. This was not true (the intelligence community was very skeptical), but the articles had a major impact in convincing people skeptical about Bush in general that he was telling the truth this time (he wasn’t). What Miller didn’t say, which would have destroyed the articles’ credibility, is that her source was Karl Rove.
MTNEER: There were several threads and I posted in one of them. I don’t think the plant issue is a big deal. I don’t think candidates should be shielded from answering questions from the other party. It looks like the Democrat questioners got in the same way everyone else did: someone thought their questions were important. Besides, the whole plant issue is a distraction from what actually is important: how badly the candidates performed. I would not mind if the Democratic candidates were asked: “What do you say to people who think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy America?”
NYT=negativism, undermining
LGM=ditto, ditto
Invariably the MSM in general cast doubt, disparages, demeans, denigrates, deny, deceives, derides, dis, degrades and much more to US society, Judeo-Christian values, authority and moral absolutes.
Ok, summonses = revenue…the cops here in NYC toss the ones they think might shoot & ticket the ones they think might pay. Makes sense to me.
Does anyone know where the money collected from scoff law fines goes to?
Just curious LGM you think the Hillery crowd will ever let a GOP plan in one of her Demo debates?
Sorry LGM I should have edited this but do you think Hillery would ever let a GOP plant in on one of her debates?
Mullet wrapper is right. The NYT is just a waste paper and ink.