Media Bias

[wildcat09 29354]

Anyone presenting anything Chris Rufo says as the truth about anything should have a guardian legally assigned to manage their affairs. 

[Foosters 17856]

Americans don't trust the media!

Anyway, here's a link to zerohedge and Chris Rufo

[TwiceHorn 31471]

A book published 15 years ago contains errors and quotations, sans quotes, of public-domain publications.

Big fucking deal.  This isn't copyright infringement or an academic paper.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Americans don't trust the media!

Anyway, here's a link to zerohedge and Chris Rufo

Check this shit out.  Can't read the whole thing, but https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-technique-of-reality-suppression

The Technique of Reality Suppression

How the Left uses propaganda and manipulation to obscure the truth.

[wildcat09 29354]

19 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Americans don't trust the media!

Anyway, here's a link to zerohedge and Chris Rufo

Brought to you by the same poster who used to post James O'Keefe as gospel.

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx

This is as meaningful as overall declining confidence in American elections.  But without context, it's fucking pointless (lies, damned lies, and statistics).

How about stating the statistical outcome with the appropriate factual modifier: "After years of relentless right-wing assaults on the media, trust in media has declined."  Or "After years of relentless and baseless attacks on American elections as 'fraudulent,' confidence in elections has declined."

Advertising/propaganda works.  That is the take away for all of these things.  The story is not that more people believe these things, just like the story was not that kids who watched Saturday morning cartoons ate more sugary cereal -- the story is that advertising/propaganda aimed at those groups worked.

[Foosters 17856]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Brought to you by the same poster who used to post James O'Keefe as gospel.

Which makes sense.

The only way to combat media bias is to counter with more bias. A bias equilibrium, if you will.

[Macklemore 2872]

How can thread be discussed properly without it devolving into politics. There are tweets by Speaker Mike Johnson about his appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation and how his answers to questions were manipulated that I’d like to post here but would be no bueno as CR.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

Well, here's the full transcript, courtesy of CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-full-transcript-01-07-2024/

 

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5388]

6 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

How can thread be discussed properly without it devolving into politics. There are tweets by Speaker Mike Johnson about his appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation and how his answers to questions were manipulated that I’d like to post here but would be no bueno as CR.

Aww, don't cry baby, do you need your binky?

 

[bolverk 29672]

48 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

How can thread be discussed properly without it devolving into politics. There are tweets by Speaker Mike Johnson about his appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation and how his answers to questions were manipulated that I’d like to post here but would be no bueno as CR.

I don't know anything about that, but it's kind of ironic that a guy who lies as readily as you do ("I'm not Icono") is so concerned about the truthful portrayal of an interview.

[Foosters 17856]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I don't know anything about that, but it's kind of ironic that a guy who lies as readily as you do ("I'm not Icono") is so concerned about the truthful portrayal of an interview.

you mean the guy who's concerned about plagiarism but fine with rape? 

[bolverk 29672]

10 minutes ago, Foosters said:

you mean the guy who's concerned about plagiarism but fine with rape? 

That's right. Icono is so concerned about the truth that he 100% supports a guy who told 30,000+ documented lies in a four-year span.

[aggie08 21504]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:00 PM, Conqueeftador said:

He has definitely lost a step from 4-8 years ago. His speech is a little less clear. I've seen the clips where he mixes up names. But I also saw a podcast today with Andrew Schulz the comedian that was an hour and a half which was free flowing and pretty funny honestly. He's nowhere near what Biden was/is where he requires handlers to help him walk around and to complete basic meetings and work functions.

Yep, he's crushing it this week!

[bolverk 29672]

On 10/15/2024 at 12:06 PM, Macklemore said:

How can thread be discussed properly without it devolving into politics. There are tweets by Speaker Mike Johnson about his appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation and how his answers to questions were manipulated that I’d like to post here but would be no bueno as CR.

Hey Icono!

Have you heard about the recently held Fox News women's town hall for a certain candidate? It turns out the event was a big scam, full of that candidate's supporters and women who belong to organizations actively campaigning for that candidate. It was basically an unpaid political ad to fool the media channel's audience into believing the candidate was gaining ground and had broad support among women.

If you actually gave a shit about media bias, you should be incensed. Why haven't you come back into this thread telling us all about it? Could it be that you don't really give a shit? Please, tell us you weren't being disingenuous.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Hey Icono!

Have you heard about the recently held Fox News women's town hall for a certain candidate? It turns out the event was a big scam, full of that candidate's supporters and women who belong to organizations actively campaigning for that candidate. It was basically an unpaid political ad to fool the media channel's audience into believing the candidate was gaining ground and had broad support among women.

If you actually gave a shit about media bias, you should be incensed. Why haven't you come back into this thread telling us all about it? Could it be that you don't really give a shit? Please, tell us you weren't being disingenuous.

There wasn't supposed to be any fact-checking!

[bernorange 8361]

Quote

Kamala Harris’s plagiarism is “more serious” than it first seemed, a New York Times expert has admitted after he initially downplayed more than a dozen examples of copied paragraphs in her book.
...
But The New York Times downplayed the story, focussing on the conservative academic Christopher Rufo, who brought it to light.

The newspaper’s headline, “Conservative activist seizes on passages from Harris book”, was criticised by Republicans for failing to scrutinise the allegations.

The story quoted Jonathan Bailey, a “plagiarism expert”, who said the extracts were “an error and not an intent to defraud”, and the Harris campaign, which accused Mr Rufo of launching an attack on the vice-president for political reasons.
...
However, writing on his blog Plagiarism Today on Thursday, Mr Bailey said that he had only been given five examples of the alleged plagiarism by the New York Times, and that he had not had a chance to review the full report accusing her of stealing passages from other sources.

In a blog post, he said the plagiarism was “more serious” than he first realised, and reversed his comments. He wrote: “At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my ‘initial reaction’ to those allegations, not a complete analysis.”
...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegations-more-serious-than-i-thought-admits-new-york-times-expert/ar-AA1ss8Am

[Captainant 27669]

14 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegations-more-serious-than-i-thought-admits-new-york-times-expert/ar-AA1ss8Am

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying this is a legit story and it's """media bias""" that more people aren't paying attention to your hobby horse?

[bernorange 8361]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. ...

That's probably because I have not posited any opinion.  This is a DT thread and I'm sharing an evolving story about alleged media bias in the NYT's reporting.  YMMV.

[Celery Man 20949]

daily texan is for serious news - this is an entertainment/celebrity article per MSN

[Celery Man 20949]

i shouldn't assume that the tone of the above comment will convey - I'm joking.

Do you think that this is a serious news story? Does the format of this article resemble news reporting to you? As you read it, does it strike you as serious fact based unbiased investigative reporting? Is this article similar to most of the things that you read? Did you find this as you perused the celebrity pages on MSN or from some other source? Do you think that people who get their news from the New York TImes rather than however you got this news have more bias in their news diet than you?

[Captainant 27669]

22 hours ago, bernorange said:

That's probably because I have not posited any opinion.  This is a DT thread and I'm sharing an evolving story about alleged media bias in the NYT's reporting.  YMMV.

The reason why I took the stance towards you I did, is because the main group of people crying about media bias are also desperate to equivocate and/or not have any discussion about shit like this

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

22 hours ago, bernorange said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegations-more-serious-than-i-thought-admits-new-york-times-expert/ar-AA1ss8Am

Oooh a whopping two paragraphs.  It's not good and wiki isn't a primary source and thus is often riddled with errors, reproduced there.  She had a co-author and yeah the buck probably stops with her as a named author.

One other possibility.  As a lawdog, you often want to cite to cases and, if you craft original text/prose communicating the holding of the case(s), there is some risk you get accused of mischaracterizing it.  Also, there is the laziness factor and "I can't say it much better than the court that originally wrote it."  So, it's not uncommon to copy/paste a critical passage from a case and paraphrase it some so it isn't a direct quote (quotes in legal writing get tedious).

So, if Harris wrote it, it's pretty sloppy, especially just taking Wikipedia at its word.  And, whether she wrote it or her co-author did, she still bears ultimate responsibility.

How torqued up you get about it is a matter of opinion, which is itself bias.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

22 hours ago, Celery Man said:

i shouldn't assume that the tone of the above comment will convey - I'm joking.

Do you think that this is a serious news story? Does the format of this article resemble news reporting to you? As you read it, does it strike you as serious fact based unbiased investigative reporting? Is this article similar to most of the things that you read? Did you find this as you perused the celebrity pages on MSN or from some other source? Do you think that people who get their news from the New York TImes rather than however you got this news have more bias in their news diet than you?

It is a repro from the Telegraph, which is a conservative UK paper.  It's not Murdoch, but more like WSJ.  

ETA on further review, Telegraph might as well be Murdoch owned, it has a pretty sordid recent history of bad and Russian influenced information.

Edited October 19 by TwiceHorn

[Hefeweizen 5321]

The Torygraph?  Yes it’s pretty well known to lean right.  I don’t know what’s happened to its reputation recently though.

[Bevo 13577]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glxxreed7o

 

What latest FBI data shows about violent crime
16 hours ago
Lucy Gilder
BBC Verify

 

Violent crime is one of the key issues in the US election, with research suggesting that many Americans believe it is on the rise.

But the latest FBI crime data shows it fell last year.

The much-anticipated report, released in September, shows declines across several serious crimes including rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The number of murders saw the largest drop in 20 years, according to the FBI.
What does new FBI data show?

Violent crime - as recorded by the FBI - includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault reported to and recorded by police forces.

Its latest report shows that violent crime fell by an estimated 3% between 2022 and 2023.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter reduced by 12%, the largest drop in the last 20 years.

The report also shows falls in:

    Rape by 9%
    Robbery by 0.3%
    Aggravated assault by 3%

In 2023, the FBI recorded a rate of 363.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, down from the 2022 rate of 377.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The agency revised the violent crime rate between 2021 and 2022.

Previously, the figures showed a 2.1% fall over this period, now the agency says there was a 4.5% rise.

The FBI did not publicise this change, which has led to some criticism.

Ames Grawert, a crime researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice, told BBC Verify that the revision was "likely the result of a change in the way FBI collected crime data in 2021".

"Nothing here undermines confidence in the 2023 data”, he argues.

Submitting data to the FBI is voluntary and in recent years some police forces have not done this.

In 2021, the participation rate was around two thirds because many agencies - including in New York and Los Angeles - did not submit data to a new FBI system.

Donald Trump regularly criticises the FBI data and his website says it “is missing nearly a third of the nation's law enforcement agencies — including from many of the most violent cities, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and New Orleans”.

But participation has steadily improved and in 2023 more than 85% of agencies enrolled in the FBI's data collection system submitted figures.

The FBI says every city agency covering a population of one million or more residents contributed a full 12 months of data in 2023.

Daniel Flannery, a professor specialising in violence prevention research, says that generally it is the smaller agencies that do not submit data.

“Many of them don’t have their own data people. Suburban and and rural communities tend to be the ones not submitting the data because they lack resources,” he says.
Are there other measures of violent crime?

The other way of tracking US violent crime is through a nationwide survey of about a quarter of a million people.

The National Crime Victimization Survey asks them whether they have been victims of crime and whether they reported these offences to the police (in 2023, only around half of them did).

Violent crime, as recorded by the survey, includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It does not count murder.

Donald Trump regularly highlights this survey as proof that “violent crime nationwide is up 40%” since 2020.

This figure is right, according to the latest crime survey statistics.

They show that the rate of violent crime per 1,000 of the population did increase by this much between 2020 and 2023.

However, Trump is making a comparison with a year when violent crime - as measured by the survey - was significantly lower.

Prof Flannery says “picking a year during Covid that may represent the lowest crime rates then comparing to a more 'return to normal year' cherry picks two points in time. Comparing 2023 to a pre-Covid year may be more appropriate.”

The survey says that “while the 2023 rate was higher than those in 2020 and 2021, it was not statistically different from five years ago, in 2019”.
What do longer term crime trends show?

FBI data shows the rate of violent crime fell by a quarter over the past two decades.

On the reduction in violent crime, Prof Flannery says it’s “partly because we’re getting better at understanding what drives violent crime, which tends to be a small number of people in a community committing repeat offences. It’s also about targeted policing strategy and intervention.”

Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice, says that other factors may be influential in bringing crime levels down.

“We don’t know all the reasons crime fluctuates but some of it is obviously demographic. We’re an aging society which generally speaking should lead to less crime.

“There are also environmental factors like streetlighting which help with crime prevention. Evidence suggests it makes the potential perpetrators of crimes like robbery and auto-theft believe they’re going to be caught,” he argues.

 

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-crime-rate-trump-harris-fact-check/

Politics
Harris says violent crime is down. Trump says it's up. Here's a fact check.

By Laura Doan

October 16, 2024 / 6:48 PM EDT / CBS News

On the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that violent crime has "skyrocketed" since 2020. Vice President Kamala Harris has claimed that violent crime has declined to a "near 50-year low."

Both candidates are citing different federal statistics that measure violent crime; Trump cites a Justice Department survey, while Harris cites FBI data on crimes reported by police departments.

Crime researchers tell CBS News that while both are valuable metrics, the FBI data Harris cites is more reliable, and she is correct that it suggests violent crime is at a near 50-year low. However, both Trump and Harris overlook the significant impact of COVID-19 when comparing current crime rates to 2020, researchers say.
Breaking down Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed"

Central to Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed" is a federal survey which estimates national crime rates by asking a sample of people whether they experienced a crime in the last six months.

In a recent post on social media, Trump said, "Compared to 2020, violent crime is up nearly 40 percent." That figure aligns with estimates from the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, known as the NCVS, by the Department of Justice, which found that the rate of violent crime offenses — defined as rape, robbery and aggravated assault, but not including homicide — was about 37% higher in 2023 than in 2020.

Crime researchers say the survey findings are valuable because they can capture some instances of crimes that often go unreported to police. But the survey's violent crime estimates exclude murders and are limited by a margin of error, according to Jeff Asher, a crime data analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.

"The 2023 NCVS showed violent crime likely fell slightly from 2022 levels and was not statistically different from where it was in 2019. Comparing one favorable year of NCVS to a less favorable year is simply cherry-picking the data source without considering the overall trend and without acknowledging a potentially large margin of error," Asher said.
What research shows about violent crime under Biden-Harris

Experts more commonly refer to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which tracks crimes reported to police by participating law enforcement agencies. According to that FBI, the rate of violent crimes — defined as rape, robbery, aggravated assault and homicide — was around 6% lower in 2023 than in 2020.

Harris' claim that violent crime dropped to a "near 50-year low" is accurate, according to analysis by Asher. The 2023 violent crime rate is just slightly above the rates reported in 2014 and 2021, which are the lowest reported since 1970.

"It's an accurate statement based on the FBI data, though I prefer to say 'reported violent crime is at or near a 50-year low' for precise accuracy given that not every violent crime is reported to the police," Asher said.

The FBI's figures are estimates, and participation by police agencies is voluntary, but the FBI said more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies (out of about 18,000 nationwide) provided data for 2023.

Other research corroborates these trends. For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association reported a 9.1% decrease in murders from 2020 to 2023 in 70 large U.S. cities.

AH Datalytics found total violent crime reports were lower in 2023 compared to 2020 and that they have continued to decline in 2024.
What research shows about violent crime under Trump

FBI data shows that violent crime rates fell annually during Trump's first three years in office, but spiked in 2020. Researchers continue to study the causes of the spike, but have pointed to a number of potential factors including the economic and mental strain of the pandemic, an increase in gun sales, and protests following the murder of George Floyd in police custody. However, they remain divided on how the protests may have contributed to the increase.

Amid widespread lockdowns, some opportunity-based crimes like robbery dropped while crimes like homicides increased, according to Jillian Turanovic, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder. She cautioned that using 2020 as a baseline for crime comparisons is misleading.

"It's crucial to consider longer time horizons, especially when analyzing data from periods of significant societal disruption like the COVID-19 pandemic," said Turanovic.
Data shows violent crime rates generally declining since 1990s

Despite the discrepancies between crime surveys and reported crime rates in recent years, Turanovic says both the NCVS and FBI data show similar long-term trends.

"Both tell us that the nation's violent crime rate is substantially lower than it was in the 1990s, that violent crime rates, based on most recent data, are largely on par with where they have been over the past decade, and that there is no evidence that violent crime rates are 'soaring,'" Turnovic said.

 

[Brisketexan 105139]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glxxreed7o
 
What latest FBI data shows about violent crime
16 hours ago
Lucy Gilder
BBC Verify
 
Violent crime is one of the key issues in the US election, with research suggesting that many Americans believe it is on the rise.
But the latest FBI crime data shows it fell last year.
The much-anticipated report, released in September, shows declines across several serious crimes including rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
The number of murders saw the largest drop in 20 years, according to the FBI.
What does new FBI data show?
Violent crime - as recorded by the FBI - includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault reported to and recorded by police forces.
Its latest report shows that violent crime fell by an estimated 3% between 2022 and 2023.
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter reduced by 12%, the largest drop in the last 20 years.
The report also shows falls in:
    Rape by 9%
    Robbery by 0.3%
    Aggravated assault by 3%
In 2023, the FBI recorded a rate of 363.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, down from the 2022 rate of 377.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
The agency revised the violent crime rate between 2021 and 2022.
Previously, the figures showed a 2.1% fall over this period, now the agency says there was a 4.5% rise.
The FBI did not publicise this change, which has led to some criticism.
Ames Grawert, a crime researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice, told BBC Verify that the revision was "likely the result of a change in the way FBI collected crime data in 2021".
"Nothing here undermines confidence in the 2023 data”, he argues.
Submitting data to the FBI is voluntary and in recent years some police forces have not done this.
In 2021, the participation rate was around two thirds because many agencies - including in New York and Los Angeles - did not submit data to a new FBI system.
Donald Trump regularly criticises the FBI data and his website says it “is missing nearly a third of the nation's law enforcement agencies — including from many of the most violent cities, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and New Orleans”.
But participation has steadily improved and in 2023 more than 85% of agencies enrolled in the FBI's data collection system submitted figures.
The FBI says every city agency covering a population of one million or more residents contributed a full 12 months of data in 2023.
Daniel Flannery, a professor specialising in violence prevention research, says that generally it is the smaller agencies that do not submit data.
“Many of them don’t have their own data people. Suburban and and rural communities tend to be the ones not submitting the data because they lack resources,” he says.
Are there other measures of violent crime?
The other way of tracking US violent crime is through a nationwide survey of about a quarter of a million people.
The National Crime Victimization Survey asks them whether they have been victims of crime and whether they reported these offences to the police (in 2023, only around half of them did).
Violent crime, as recorded by the survey, includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It does not count murder.
Donald Trump regularly highlights this survey as proof that “violent crime nationwide is up 40%” since 2020.
This figure is right, according to the latest crime survey statistics.
They show that the rate of violent crime per 1,000 of the population did increase by this much between 2020 and 2023.
However, Trump is making a comparison with a year when violent crime - as measured by the survey - was significantly lower.
Prof Flannery says “picking a year during Covid that may represent the lowest crime rates then comparing to a more 'return to normal year' cherry picks two points in time. Comparing 2023 to a pre-Covid year may be more appropriate.”
The survey says that “while the 2023 rate was higher than those in 2020 and 2021, it was not statistically different from five years ago, in 2019”.
What do longer term crime trends show?
FBI data shows the rate of violent crime fell by a quarter over the past two decades.
On the reduction in violent crime, Prof Flannery says it’s “partly because we’re getting better at understanding what drives violent crime, which tends to be a small number of people in a community committing repeat offences. It’s also about targeted policing strategy and intervention.”
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice, says that other factors may be influential in bringing crime levels down.
“We don’t know all the reasons crime fluctuates but some of it is obviously demographic. We’re an aging society which generally speaking should lead to less crime.
“There are also environmental factors like streetlighting which help with crime prevention. Evidence suggests it makes the potential perpetrators of crimes like robbery and auto-theft believe they’re going to be caught,” he argues.
 
 
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-crime-rate-trump-harris-fact-check/

Politics
Harris says violent crime is down. Trump says it's up. Here's a fact check.
By Laura Doan
October 16, 2024 / 6:48 PM EDT / CBS News
On the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that violent crime has "skyrocketed" since 2020. Vice President Kamala Harris has claimed that violent crime has declined to a "near 50-year low."
Both candidates are citing different federal statistics that measure violent crime; Trump cites a Justice Department survey, while Harris cites FBI data on crimes reported by police departments.
Crime researchers tell CBS News that while both are valuable metrics, the FBI data Harris cites is more reliable, and she is correct that it suggests violent crime is at a near 50-year low. However, both Trump and Harris overlook the significant impact of COVID-19 when comparing current crime rates to 2020, researchers say.
Breaking down Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed"
Central to Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed" is a federal survey which estimates national crime rates by asking a sample of people whether they experienced a crime in the last six months.
In a recent post on social media, Trump said, "Compared to 2020, violent crime is up nearly 40 percent." That figure aligns with estimates from the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, known as the NCVS, by the Department of Justice, which found that the rate of violent crime offenses — defined as rape, robbery and aggravated assault, but not including homicide — was about 37% higher in 2023 than in 2020.
Crime researchers say the survey findings are valuable because they can capture some instances of crimes that often go unreported to police. But the survey's violent crime estimates exclude murders and are limited by a margin of error, according to Jeff Asher, a crime data analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.
"The 2023 NCVS showed violent crime likely fell slightly from 2022 levels and was not statistically different from where it was in 2019. Comparing one favorable year of NCVS to a less favorable year is simply cherry-picking the data source without considering the overall trend and without acknowledging a potentially large margin of error," Asher said.
What research shows about violent crime under Biden-Harris
Experts more commonly refer to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which tracks crimes reported to police by participating law enforcement agencies. According to that FBI, the rate of violent crimes — defined as rape, robbery, aggravated assault and homicide — was around 6% lower in 2023 than in 2020.
Harris' claim that violent crime dropped to a "near 50-year low" is accurate, according to analysis by Asher. The 2023 violent crime rate is just slightly above the rates reported in 2014 and 2021, which are the lowest reported since 1970.
"It's an accurate statement based on the FBI data, though I prefer to say 'reported violent crime is at or near a 50-year low' for precise accuracy given that not every violent crime is reported to the police," Asher said.
The FBI's figures are estimates, and participation by police agencies is voluntary, but the FBI said more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies (out of about 18,000 nationwide) provided data for 2023.
Other research corroborates these trends. For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association reported a 9.1% decrease in murders from 2020 to 2023 in 70 large U.S. cities.
AH Datalytics found total violent crime reports were lower in 2023 compared to 2020 and that they have continued to decline in 2024.
What research shows about violent crime under Trump
FBI data shows that violent crime rates fell annually during Trump's first three years in office, but spiked in 2020. Researchers continue to study the causes of the spike, but have pointed to a number of potential factors including the economic and mental strain of the pandemic, an increase in gun sales, and protests following the murder of George Floyd in police custody. However, they remain divided on how the protests may have contributed to the increase.
Amid widespread lockdowns, some opportunity-based crimes like robbery dropped while crimes like homicides increased, according to Jillian Turanovic, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder. She cautioned that using 2020 as a baseline for crime comparisons is misleading.
"It's crucial to consider longer time horizons, especially when analyzing data from periods of significant societal disruption like the COVID-19 pandemic," said Turanovic.
Data shows violent crime rates generally declining since 1990s
Despite the discrepancies between crime surveys and reported crime rates in recent years, Turanovic says both the NCVS and FBI data show similar long-term trends.
"Both tell us that the nation's violent crime rate is substantially lower than it was in the 1990s, that violent crime rates, based on most recent data, are largely on par with where they have been over the past decade, and that there is no evidence that violent crime rates are 'soaring,'" Turnovic said.
 

The Trumpers LIKE the lies. They know they’re lies, and they LIKE THEM. So, any bitching from them about “bias” is dishonest and in bad faith.

[Celery Man 20949]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is a repro from the Telegraph, which is a conservative UK paper.  It's not Murdoch, but more like WSJ.  

ETA on further review, Telegraph might as well be Murdoch owned, it has a pretty sordid recent history of bad and Russian influenced information.

I haven’t read the wsj in a minute and I suppose anything goes under opinion but it would be sad if they’ve fallen to this as as their standard.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

47 minutes ago, Bevo said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glxxreed7o

 

What latest FBI data shows about violent crime
16 hours ago
Lucy Gilder
BBC Verify

 

Violent crime is one of the key issues in the US election, with research suggesting that many Americans believe it is on the rise.

But the latest FBI crime data shows it fell last year.

The much-anticipated report, released in September, shows declines across several serious crimes including rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The number of murders saw the largest drop in 20 years, according to the FBI.
What does new FBI data show?

Violent crime - as recorded by the FBI - includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault reported to and recorded by police forces.

Its latest report shows that violent crime fell by an estimated 3% between 2022 and 2023.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter reduced by 12%, the largest drop in the last 20 years.

The report also shows falls in:

    Rape by 9%
    Robbery by 0.3%
    Aggravated assault by 3%

In 2023, the FBI recorded a rate of 363.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, down from the 2022 rate of 377.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The agency revised the violent crime rate between 2021 and 2022.

Previously, the figures showed a 2.1% fall over this period, now the agency says there was a 4.5% rise.

The FBI did not publicise this change, which has led to some criticism.

Ames Grawert, a crime researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice, told BBC Verify that the revision was "likely the result of a change in the way FBI collected crime data in 2021".

"Nothing here undermines confidence in the 2023 data”, he argues.

Submitting data to the FBI is voluntary and in recent years some police forces have not done this.

In 2021, the participation rate was around two thirds because many agencies - including in New York and Los Angeles - did not submit data to a new FBI system.

Donald Trump regularly criticises the FBI data and his website says it “is missing nearly a third of the nation's law enforcement agencies — including from many of the most violent cities, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and New Orleans”.

But participation has steadily improved and in 2023 more than 85% of agencies enrolled in the FBI's data collection system submitted figures.

The FBI says every city agency covering a population of one million or more residents contributed a full 12 months of data in 2023.

Daniel Flannery, a professor specialising in violence prevention research, says that generally it is the smaller agencies that do not submit data.

“Many of them don’t have their own data people. Suburban and and rural communities tend to be the ones not submitting the data because they lack resources,” he says.
Are there other measures of violent crime?

The other way of tracking US violent crime is through a nationwide survey of about a quarter of a million people.

The National Crime Victimization Survey asks them whether they have been victims of crime and whether they reported these offences to the police (in 2023, only around half of them did).

Violent crime, as recorded by the survey, includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It does not count murder.

Donald Trump regularly highlights this survey as proof that “violent crime nationwide is up 40%” since 2020.

This figure is right, according to the latest crime survey statistics.

They show that the rate of violent crime per 1,000 of the population did increase by this much between 2020 and 2023.

However, Trump is making a comparison with a year when violent crime - as measured by the survey - was significantly lower.

Prof Flannery says “picking a year during Covid that may represent the lowest crime rates then comparing to a more 'return to normal year' cherry picks two points in time. Comparing 2023 to a pre-Covid year may be more appropriate.”

The survey says that “while the 2023 rate was higher than those in 2020 and 2021, it was not statistically different from five years ago, in 2019”.
What do longer term crime trends show?

FBI data shows the rate of violent crime fell by a quarter over the past two decades.

On the reduction in violent crime, Prof Flannery says it’s “partly because we’re getting better at understanding what drives violent crime, which tends to be a small number of people in a community committing repeat offences. It’s also about targeted policing strategy and intervention.”

Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice, says that other factors may be influential in bringing crime levels down.

“We don’t know all the reasons crime fluctuates but some of it is obviously demographic. We’re an aging society which generally speaking should lead to less crime.

“There are also environmental factors like streetlighting which help with crime prevention. Evidence suggests it makes the potential perpetrators of crimes like robbery and auto-theft believe they’re going to be caught,” he argues.

 

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-crime-rate-trump-harris-fact-check/

Politics
Harris says violent crime is down. Trump says it's up. Here's a fact check.

By Laura Doan

October 16, 2024 / 6:48 PM EDT / CBS News

On the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that violent crime has "skyrocketed" since 2020. Vice President Kamala Harris has claimed that violent crime has declined to a "near 50-year low."

Both candidates are citing different federal statistics that measure violent crime; Trump cites a Justice Department survey, while Harris cites FBI data on crimes reported by police departments.

Crime researchers tell CBS News that while both are valuable metrics, the FBI data Harris cites is more reliable, and she is correct that it suggests violent crime is at a near 50-year low. However, both Trump and Harris overlook the significant impact of COVID-19 when comparing current crime rates to 2020, researchers say.
Breaking down Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed"

Central to Trump's claim that crime has "skyrocketed" is a federal survey which estimates national crime rates by asking a sample of people whether they experienced a crime in the last six months.

In a recent post on social media, Trump said, "Compared to 2020, violent crime is up nearly 40 percent." That figure aligns with estimates from the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, known as the NCVS, by the Department of Justice, which found that the rate of violent crime offenses — defined as rape, robbery and aggravated assault, but not including homicide — was about 37% higher in 2023 than in 2020.

Crime researchers say the survey findings are valuable because they can capture some instances of crimes that often go unreported to police. But the survey's violent crime estimates exclude murders and are limited by a margin of error, according to Jeff Asher, a crime data analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.

"The 2023 NCVS showed violent crime likely fell slightly from 2022 levels and was not statistically different from where it was in 2019. Comparing one favorable year of NCVS to a less favorable year is simply cherry-picking the data source without considering the overall trend and without acknowledging a potentially large margin of error," Asher said.
What research shows about violent crime under Biden-Harris

Experts more commonly refer to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which tracks crimes reported to police by participating law enforcement agencies. According to that FBI, the rate of violent crimes — defined as rape, robbery, aggravated assault and homicide — was around 6% lower in 2023 than in 2020.

Harris' claim that violent crime dropped to a "near 50-year low" is accurate, according to analysis by Asher. The 2023 violent crime rate is just slightly above the rates reported in 2014 and 2021, which are the lowest reported since 1970.

"It's an accurate statement based on the FBI data, though I prefer to say 'reported violent crime is at or near a 50-year low' for precise accuracy given that not every violent crime is reported to the police," Asher said.

The FBI's figures are estimates, and participation by police agencies is voluntary, but the FBI said more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies (out of about 18,000 nationwide) provided data for 2023.

Other research corroborates these trends. For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association reported a 9.1% decrease in murders from 2020 to 2023 in 70 large U.S. cities.

AH Datalytics found total violent crime reports were lower in 2023 compared to 2020 and that they have continued to decline in 2024.
What research shows about violent crime under Trump

FBI data shows that violent crime rates fell annually during Trump's first three years in office, but spiked in 2020. Researchers continue to study the causes of the spike, but have pointed to a number of potential factors including the economic and mental strain of the pandemic, an increase in gun sales, and protests following the murder of George Floyd in police custody. However, they remain divided on how the protests may have contributed to the increase.

Amid widespread lockdowns, some opportunity-based crimes like robbery dropped while crimes like homicides increased, according to Jillian Turanovic, an associate professoater of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder. She cautioned that using 2020 as a baseline for crime comparisons is misleading.

"It's crucial to consider longer time horizons, especially when analyzing data from periods of significant societal disruption like the COVID-19 pandemic," said Turanovic.
Data shows violent crime rates generally declining since 1990s

Despite the discrepancies between crime surveys and reported crime rates in recent years, Turanovic says both the NCVS and FBI data show similar long-term trends.

"Both tell us that the nation's violent crime rate is substantially lower than it was in the 1990s, that violent crime rates, based on most recent data, are largely on par with where they have been over the past decade, and that there is no evidence that violent crime rates are 'soaring,'" Turnovic said.

 

That's a very even-handed article from MSM.

Even points out that it might be unfair to tag Trump with high crime rates due to Covid.

And, you can argue that FBI jukes the stats.  But WHEN do they juke the stats?  I would assume that the motive to juke them remains steady over time so they're pretty consistent year to year for comparison.

[Bevo 13577]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, you can argue that FBI jukes the stats.  But WHEN do they juke the stats?  I would assume that the motive to juke them remains steady over time so they're pretty consistent year to year for comparison.

 

Within a percentage point in the past as opposed to this year.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4740]

44 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I haven’t read the wsj in a minute and I suppose anything goes under opinion but it would be sad if they’ve fallen to this as as their standard.

I read the WSJ every day. Their news room is top notch in my opinion. Their opinion/editorial section is the New York Post dressed in a men’s warehouse suit. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

The reason why I took the stance towards you I did, is because the main group of people crying about media bias are also desperate to equivocate and/or not have any discussion about shit like this

 

 

As I commented on the earlier thread about the Tim Pool-Russia shit show, American “conservative” media is particularly vulnerable to Russian manipulation.  They treat it as completely normal to have dark money sloshing around supporting enterprises that cannot turn a profit. 

[Paul Wesley 3278]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:22 AM, Reynolds Woodcock said:

I read the WSJ every day. Their news room is top notch in my opinion. 

Really? 

I had to subscribe because I was taking an economics class that required access.  The day my subscription started, the banner headline on their front page was "An Abortion Story Too Good to Confirm," where they loudly proclaimed that a child victim who got pregnant via rape and had to leave the state for an elective abortion was fictitious and did not exist (Biden had publicly referenced the case)... except they soon found out that she **did** exist and they had to print a retraction (I'll let you guess if the retraction got the same banner-headline treatment).  

That is decidedly not the behavior of a "top notch" news room.  

I didn't read the WSJ prior to that, and I thought they just catered to stodgy investment banker types.  I was kind of shocked at how "Fox News" they were.  The victim-denying headline story was far from the only story that seemed to be purely political propaganda and had not a fucking thing to do with business/investment/finance/Wall Street.   I mentioned my surprise to a finance friend of mine who does investment analysis, and he laughed and said, "You know they're owned by Murdoch, right?"  No, I didn't know that.

Anyway, the class ended and I unsubscribed the first possible day I could.  

 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 hour ago, Paul Wesley said:

Really? 

I had to subscribe because I was taking an economics class that required access.  The day my subscription started, the banner headline on their front page was "An Abortion Story Too Good to Confirm," where they loudly proclaimed that a child victim who got pregnant via rape and had to leave the state for an elective abortion was fictitious and did not exist (Biden had publicly referenced the case)... except they soon found out that she **did** exist and they had to print a retraction (I'll let you guess if the retraction got the same banner-headline treatment).  

That is decidedly not the behavior of a "top notch" news room.  

I didn't read the WSJ prior to that, and I thought they just catered to stodgy investment banker types.  I was kind of shocked at how "Fox News" they were.  The victim-denying headline story was far from the only story that seemed to be purely political propaganda and had not a fucking thing to do with business/investment/finance/Wall Street.   I mentioned my surprise to a finance friend of mine who does investment analysis, and he laughed and said, "You know they're owned by Murdoch, right?"  No, I didn't know that.

Anyway, the class ended and I unsubscribed the first possible day I could.  

 

Well, you're apparently a pretty young fella.  Murdoch has owned DJI and WSJ since 2007, which is relatively recently in the long history of WSJ.

By newsroom I assume Woodcock meant people like John Carreyrou, who exposed Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes; and were key in exposing Agnew, the Barbarians at the Gate saga (RJR Nabisco), Ivan Boesky, and Enron, among others.  WSJ writers also exposed the Stormy Daniels payment.

They've always been sort of Chamber of Commerce conservative, but have drifted into MAGA territory since the Murdoch takeover, but mostly in the opinion/editorial arena.  Of course that arena and hard news are blurry these days.

 

[Nivek 16930]

It is really not difficult to discern propaganda from real information. All it requires is a little critical thought and sometimes checking sources when things get outlandish.

What I see is a xenophobic campaign run by the right wing hate machine, against vulnerable people. I see no policy talk, no facts, nothing to address how they are not psychopaths, felons and morons.

The left should hammer on that. Instead of “Mr. President” it should be “convict Trump”. Every single article and ad in the media should include the fraud judgements, the numerous absurd lies, the attempted coup, the mentally unfit moments, the injection of bleach, the sexual assault judgements, and being impeached. Then introduce his leadership teams who are also felons.

That is fair, because it is all true.

Ted Cruz is a piece of shit whose idea of fighting for Oil and Gas workers was to do nothing during the downturn. His billionaire backers raked in millions to speculate and buy distressed companies while 10s of thousands of workers lost their jobs/careers. He isn’t just a coward, he is a pathological liar and a wimp who ran from a storm and threw his own children under the bus in trying to explain his actions for a 3rd time after each other lie failed. He has done nothing to help the immigration issues or to help curtail crime. He even voted against benefits for vets and first responders and celebrated fucking over those people just around the same time he has supported more needless tax cuts on the elites and corporations.

Just fucking print that. It is all true. No lies are needed, just tell the truth about these fuckheads, it’s is damning enough.


It is also why they have to lie, because the truth is that B-H did a very good job cleaning up the mess. But it isn’t over. They have to root out the corruption in the judicial branch next.

[mdmost 43001]

A statement from 60 Minutes

October 20, 2024 / 7:00 PM EDT / CBS News

Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false.

60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.

Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.

Our long-standing invitation to former President Trump remains open. If he would like to discuss the issues facing the nation and the Harris interview, we would be happy to have him on 60 Minutes.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

I very seriously doubt CBS was intentionally trying to make Harris look better.  The only difference between the two answers was length and clarity.  And, I think this is pretty SOP.

Still, doing such a thing in today's environment is risky.

It's ironic, as always, that Trump would object, given his own complete word-tableside-Caesar-salads and the editing Fox and others routinely do to make him look better, e.g. the Town Hall.

[Captainant 27669]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I very seriously doubt CBS was intentionally trying to make Harris look better.  The only difference between the two answers was length and clarity.  And, I think this is pretty SOP.

Still, doing such a thing in today's environment is risky.

It's ironic, as always, that Trump would object, given his own complete word-tableside-Caesar-salads and the editing Fox and others routinely do to make him look better, e.g. the Town Hall.

Every. Accusation. Is. A. Confession. 

[Bevo 13577]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I very seriously doubt CBS was intentionally trying to make Harris look better. 

 

Ha, ha - right after the incorrect fact check on crime rates.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Ha, ha - right after the incorrect fact check on crime rates.

To what do you refer?

[TwiceHorn 31471]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:50 AM, Bevo said:

 

Within a percentage point in the past as opposed to this year.

Is this some kind of fact-check?

My point was that LEA and the FBI might be motivated to underreport crime, so their stats might be juked low, ala Comstat.  But I very seriously doubt that motivation or the results vary by politics.  There is almost never an advantage for law enforcement to start overreporting crime.

Therefore, while FBI stats may be on the low end, they are uniformly so, year-to-year and indicate that crime is, in fact, low currently.

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is this some kind of fact-check?

My point was that LEA and the FBI might be motivated to underreport crime, so their stats might be juked low, ala Comstat.  But I very seriously doubt that motivation or the results vary by politics.  There is almost never an advantage for law enforcement to start overreporting crime.

Therefore, while FBI stats may be on the low end, they are uniformly so, year-to-year and indicate that crime is, in fact, low currently.

 

In the past, the FBI data has been revised less than 1 percentage point. This year it was revised 6.5 percentage points, I believe, and it wasn't reported by the FBI but found somewhat serendipitously. No one could speak for motivations without an investigation so you are just speculating like many others.

[Nivek 16930]

5 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

In the past, the FBI data has been revised less than 1 percentage point. This year it was revised 6.5 percentage points, I believe, and it wasn't reported by the FBI but found somewhat serendipitously. No one could speak for motivations without an investigation so you are just speculating like many others.

So this is the evidence you need for a conspiracy, but actual clips of Convicted Felon Trump requesting Putin interfere with elections followed by hacking by foreign actors is just a co-inky-dink.  

[Brisketexan 105139]

Just now, Nivek said:

So this is the evidence you need for a conspiracy, but actual clips of Convicted Felon Trump requesting Putin interfere with elections followed by hacking by foreign actors is just a co-inky-dink.  

Again, it's not a double-standard for these people.  It's a stringent standard for one (catch anyone who might possibly lean Dem jaywalking, and it's front-page news) and ZERO standard, a complete free pass, for the other (fucking seriously.....entire fucking networks are devoted to promoting TFG, promulgating utterly fake stories, and the other legacy media outfits can't even be bothered to call his blatant lies "lies," as they handle a fucking sociopath with kid gloves).  It's fucking ridiculous, and fuck anyone and everyone who applies that approach.  Nobody - not one person - who supports that party can ever say anything about media bias.  Remove the fucking sequoia-sized log in your own eye before you hunt for the tiniest of splinters in someone else's eye.

[Bevo 13577]

9 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So this is the evidence you need for a conspiracy, but actual clips of Convicted Felon Trump requesting Putin interfere with elections followed by hacking by foreign actors is just a co-inky-dink.  

 

Well since I said that no one can determine motivation without an investigation and that speculation is worthless, I have a hard time figuring out your thought process.

[Nivek 16930]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Well since I said that no one can determine motivation without an investigation and that speculation is worthless, I have a hard time figuring out your thought process.

So why did you bring it up?  

[wildcat09 29354]

An interesting thing happened over the weekend. The NY Times journalist who has been liveblogging Trump's rallies for them (and who has been rightfully accused of sanewashing Trump's rallies in previous blogs) was covering the rally where Trump talked about how big Arnold Palmer's dick was. His story ignored that and simply said Trump spent the opening "telling Arnold Palmer golf stories."  So someone emailed to criticize his reporting, and he responded:

 

 

[Nivek 16930]

NYT fucked up by trying to placate morons by hiring hacks.