Bad journalism
December 29th, 2007 at 10:06 am by David FarrarSomething the media do all too often is take two things together and pronounce their combined increase to make something not bad sound bad.
For example if murders increased by 2% and assaults increased by 30%, you sometimes get a headline saying “murders and assaults up 29%”, and the average person will think murders have gone up 29%.
We see this in The Press, where it is stated:
Canterbury is heading for its highest road toll in eight years, with cellphone use and a failure to wear seatbelts blamed for nearly one-third of the deaths.
Now you read that and think oh My God cellphones are increasing the road toll massively.
Then we get the numbers. Of 55 deaths, 15 are blamed on no seatbelts and two on cellphone use. So in fact cellphone use is responsible for 3.6% of the fatalities and seatbelts for 27%.
But how many people will go on and work out cellphone use is less than 4%? People will just remember the sub-headline that “seatbelts and cellphones have increased deaths by a third”
No tag for this post.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am
The anti goods and services Greenie left disapproves of most material progress except for fresh goats and fresh water for Ethiopians who instead want an economy where they can aspire to mechanical transport and TVs.
Cars and cellphones worry the left.
In NSW they have recently had a melding of minds with police who are thinking about banning in-car GPS due to driver distraction……..the in-car GPS also often have a speed camera warning device.
That’s what I call strategic synergy.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I personally don’t have a problem with stopping people using cellphones in cars. I have had near misses on several occasions as both a pedestrian & a driver – often people trying to turn corners at busy intersections whilst on a cellphone. And people texting & reading texts whilst driving is just dumb.
Its not just a ‘left’ issue.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
We have a general law about distractions. It applies (as it should) to cellphones, smoking, eating, changing the radio, talking – if done in an unsafe manner. You don’t need a specific law which targets just one of many distractions.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I saw an extremely blatant case of bad journalism the other day
Vote:On 3 news, there was a story about a bombing in Iraq killing 10 people.
The newsreader said the US military “claims” violence in Iraq is down, so he was trying to suggest that because of this bombing it can’t be.
Ummmm don’t ya think that it the media’s job to find out if violence is down or not, they can look at one of many websites which tracks casualties in Iraq like anybody else.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Except that law is only really ever applied after the fact, when its too late, and when the police can prove that a distraction caused an accident. Not much comfort, really.
If it were a case of driving whilst using cellphones only affecting the driver, I would be with you – supporting personal responsibility. But they don’t – they impact other people (including through our insurance premiums). When we’re coming into the first generation that has lived with cellphones for most of their lives, and they’re now learning to drive with the message that chatting on a cellphone whilst driving is OK, I think its a recipe for disaster.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Saying that cellphone use is only responsible for 3.6% of the fatalities is pretty irrelevant really. How much using a cellphone increases the chance of a crash is.
http://www.psychologymatters.org/driverdistract.html
The low percentage of fatalities is due to people not being stupid enough to actually use a cellphone while driving, it isn’t due to it being safe. By promoting this statistic as relevant, without attaching relevant research upon which to base an opinion, you imply the opposite. Quite frankly I find this post to be pretty ironic.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Cellphone use, like all distractions, should be managed sensibly. Absolutism is rarely good policy.
There are times when it is risky to answer the phone. I sometimes won’t answer it, if the conditions are difficult. And other times I will talk briefly and tell someone I will ring back. And again sometimes I will chat for a few minutes if I judge the road, the weather, and the potential for something to jump out is all in my favour.
If you want to ban cellphones in every circumstance, then you should also ban passengers as talking to them can be distracting also.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“If you want to ban cellphones in every circumstance, then you should also ban passengers as talking to them can be distracting also.”
To modify your statement, absolutism rarely makes good policy. If we’re going to treat all distractions equally, we may as well remove the blood alcohol limits currently in place. The amount a distraction impairs a persons ability to control a vehicle should be the deciding factor.
I’m not necessarily saying cellphones in cars should be banned, but I am saying that such a decision should be based on real facts, and not these kind of half arsed statements.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
A passenger can see the driving conditions, and react as well. Someone on the other end of a phone can’t.
As David S. says – look to the real facts. I believe that there is research that shows that passengers talking are not as distracting as cellphones.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Cellphones are evil. They even interfered with Helen Clark listening to the Queen during her Commonwealth speech. What atrocity will they perpetrate next? They should be banned.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Spam – and adjusting radio settings is still shown as far worse than cellphone use; so shouldn’t that get banned first?
Vote: