Welcome to PatsFans.com

Surprise, surprise! NYT Smearing Soldiers

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I read about this on another website, and now here it is in the NY Post. The murder rate for the general population in this country is 5.84 per 100,000 overall, and 7.67 for males. The murder rate for soldiers is 1.34, with all of them being committed by males. Hmmm....I guess with things looking better on the front lines, and no Abu Graib pictures to post, the NYT needs to twist facts and gets in soldier smearing jones on. [​IMG]

    (NYT) SMEARING SOLDIERS

    THE GRAY LADY'S KILLER-GI LIE

    Ralph Peters

    January 15, 2008 -- THE New York Times is trashing our troops again. With no new "atrocities" to report from Iraq for many a month, the limping Gray Lady turned to the home front. Front and center, above the fold, on the front page of Sunday's Times, the week's feature story sought to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home.

    Heart-wringing tales of madness and murder not only made the front page, but filled two entire centerfold pages and spilled onto a fourth.

    The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.

    Had the Times' "journalists" and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.

    ...............

    In other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.


    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/smearing_soldiers_265875.htm
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  2. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I read that article. It's pretty sickening, but alas, not surprising.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,857
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    When Illegal Aliens Rape & Murder They Bury It On Page 900 Or They Don't Report It At All.

    Wht Don't These Anti American Sore Losing Left Wing Bastards From The NY Times Do A Survey On The California Gang Bangers And Their Murders.

    The NY Times Is Sinking Fast And They Are In Shock, the new media is kicking the sh!t out of them and showing them up for what they really are, "a left wing anti american RAG only good for cleaning up dog sh!t"

    Their circulation has dropped into the bottom of the pile
    (LEFT WING GARBAGE)

    The NY Times flew their flag at Half Staff the day they hung Saddam.



    This is the NY Times>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:bricks:
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    This is an instance where facts can be twisted to support a false conclusion. Anyone reading that NYT article who doesn't know the actual murder rates of the country, would come away thinking that the wars are turning soldiers into mad murderers when they come home. Now, granted, I know soldiers who come back from war do have some mental issues, and need counseling and help, but they don't come out shooting people. This article is another example of the media slanting information to fit an agenda. All types do it, which is why you need to read as many sources as possible, and draw your own conclusions.
  5. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    No kidding. I know firsthand how that kind of stress can affect someone, my father was a Marine in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. He's very functional, he raised a family and has retired successfully, as all of his hard work deserves. But still, I know he still has some lingering effects from his time in the war.

    But the NYT was just doing their typical thing, twisting facts to fit an agenda.
  6. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Not surprised....really sad though!
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,845
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19


    What is the source of these stats.. not arguing, just interested in the source.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Google.





    I was actually off by a bit. I think my homocide rate was old. It was actually higher than I stated. In 2006 it was 6.1% according to the FBI. I said it was 5.84.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_16.html

    Doh! I should have taken my own advice and not believed what I read. I said the male rate was 7.67 right? Well, I was wrong again. In 2006, it was worse. According to the US Department of Justice, it was 11.9%. Now that I think about it, I think the 7.67 figure was for a specific age group inside the male demographic.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/osextab.htm
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    It's not just the NYT as RW states. Nearly every media or "news" outlet does it to some degree. The best thing you can hope for is to reduce the bias as much as possible. And then read some science magazine that tells truths so your head will stop spinning from the bullsh-t from the left and right slanted media whores.
  10. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Got some bad news for you wistah, this is from the Sept 14th edition of the Wall Street Journal. Someone forwarded me the article so I don't have a link, but this sums it up:

    "Most Science Studies
    Appear to Be Tainted
    By Sloppy Analysis
    September 14, 2007; Page B1

    We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong.

    Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye.

    These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."

    The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.

    Take the discovery that the risk of disease may vary between men and women, depending on their genes. Studies have prominently reported such sex differences for hypertension, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis, as well as lung cancer and heart attacks. In research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes.

    Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated."


    I've personally seen problems with many of the papers I read, though I can only speak for my field. Just goes to show you can't take as fact things that are published in peer reviewed journals, even the best ones like Cell, Science, and Nature.
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Thanks. That's interesting as well as very disturbing. The whole field of genetics, in particular, is so dynamic and new to researchers, I can see how many mistakes are being made now. It's particularly difficult to me because success in genetic research is crucial to my immediate family.

    Tell you what, though. What would you rather use your brain or time on - Scientific American or the Boston Globe / Herald? I'll take science over politics any day. There's no such thing as a sure thing, but there are those things that are more accurate and real than others. As fun as politics is, it hurts my head and I don't understand it...kinda like women.
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    the NY Post piece attempting to put the NYT in perspective... that's excellent... sorta like a CFL player saying those short NFL end zones suck...

    anyhow... psychiatric casualties of combat? yeah, let's deny they're real based on some goofy trash newspapers take on "demographic peers"... :rolleyes:

    watch and learn...

    or, here's the whole show...

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/view/
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  13. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I don't think anyone was denying the real effects of combat on mental health, just the fact that the numbers used to try and make the point do not support the argument.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    even if they're accurate, why is anyone surprised that a military man of that age demographic would be much less likely to commit murder than a guy who didn't join the army? and just what "demographic" are they referring to? lower class young males?

    the point is, they're coming back with profound psychological trauma... almost every one of them....
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2


    So basically, you don't have anything to refute the NY Post, just some wise crack about the CFL. Gotcha. So I guess the NYT was right by your view. I know, I know, you didn't say that. The problem is, your response implies it. ;)

    BTW, incase you missed it, which commonly happens when one is more interested in an agenda than they are facts, you'd see that the original poster acknowledged that pscycological issues are a serious problem.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Yeah, even if the NYT is FOS, who cares dammit! :rolleyes:
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    you wink at me a lot... please stop... because besides the fact that it's disturbing, i also know it's fake sincerity...

    anyhow, the NYT lied to help get us into Iraq... and people like you bought it, hook, line and sinker... i'd say i've acknowledged when they're full of shyt quite clearly... so i'm not sure what you're talking about... but it IS interesting to note when people like you recognize when they're full of shyt... it's rather selective...
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Yeah, that's cuz I was posting here during the lead up to the war. :rolleyes: (is that better it's not a wink!). :p (niether is that!)
  19. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well, the problem is that the NYT is implying the opposite, that the trauma suffered in combat by our vets is leading to an increase in violence. The problem is that because the murder rate by vets is lower than the national average the view the NYT is promoting is incorrect (based solely on that data, granted). Since you know the NYT is full of it you should be pleased another inaccuracy is being pointed out.

    And just to upset you I'm sending you 2 winks, a sad face and a guy with bricks falling on him. ;) ;) :( :bricks:
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    LOL, righties get owned by a tabloid

    Of course, the New York Post and the partisan righties are reading something into the story that's plainly not there. The story is part of series that focuses on the tragedy of war, namely that some soldiers suffer alcoholism, drug abuse, and other self destructive tendencies. It's not claiming that the war creates a disproportionate number of killers; it's claiming that the damage done to soldiers by the war makes some of them seriously f*ked up. In fact, the story explicitly states that it is not a comprehensive account of murders by soldiers. That's not its intent.

    In many cases, these soldiers kill fellow soldiers, and according the article the wartime murder rate is close to 90% more than the peacetime murder rate by troops. That's what the story is about, and it's basically sympathetic to these soldiers who suffer terrible stresses and often do not get adequate help. The story is about the price of war, and if you read it you might actually have some sympathy for the individual soldiers rather than just the military industrial complex, which I know is dear to your heart.

    You righties can go ahead a feed your anti-liberal neurosis by relying on the New York Post, but please do your homework and investigate something that appears in that publication. It's hardly a credible newspaper. After all, it's the paper that regularly puts an * by the Pats record.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>