Jeb, If the NYT is going to write an article that states, as this one does, that there has been a massive increase in murders by vets before and after 2001, then it darn well better have good statistics to back up that claim. You admit it doesn’t have the stats to back up that claim, but you still think they should write the article! No one here has any problem with reporting on problems with veteran’s services, but you don’t get there by making spurious claims based on non-existent statistics. That is not just a shoddy study, it is SHODDY JOURNALISM. Would you accept the same level of journalistic integrity on conclusions about people you support, your causes? I don’t know your politics, but just take this article and replace the military with a a group you support and see if such generalizations based on non-existent statistics would be acceptable to you in that case. The NYT went looking for a story that fits a theme they believe and they were going to print that study with whatever stats they could conjure up to support it — while ignoring any stats that might mitigate or go against that theme. Finally, there should NOT be different standards between journalists and study authors when it comes to drawing scientific conclusions (in this case social science) which is exactly what this article does– one of the huge problems we have with journalism today is that most journalists do what you suggest — write articles that do not have the proper checks on their validity.
