Deb,
No talk radio and the NYT are not the same. Far from it in fact. News orgs also get stories close to me wrong (mostly science related).
The NYT article says that military murders have gone up over 80% comparing six years before and six years after the start of wars in Afghan/Iraq.
Not exactly. The NYT is clear about their methodology. They state that local news reports of these incidents by veterans are up by nearly 90% over the past 6 years since the hostilities relative to the 6 years prior.
This is a shocking statistic designed to raise concerns/fears in the reader. The implication in the article is not just that there has been an increase but that scores of veterans are returning from these wars on some sort of mental edge that will lead them to murder.
They include the actual number they found (~14.5 score over 6 years) along with the criticism of the methodology by the pentagon immediately following. If they were trying to inflame they would have left out the rather small raw number in favor of saying only “nearly 90% increase in homicides by vets.” That without the raw numbers would have been misleading and inflammatory. Anyone reading the article can see that the raw number is rather small (it is after included in the same sentence). As it is they made clear their methodology, made clear the raw numbers, made no claim of statistical significance, and included criticism of their methodology by the pentagon and veterans groups.
No WAY, not even close! You should feel far SAFER if the military vet moves in than ordinary Joe because the fact is that the war vet is, by an order of 10 at least, LESS likely to commit murder.
Do you have any valid stats to back that up? No, you don’t. You know how I know that? The data is not kept on the veteran status of criminals (or at least non is made public) so there can be no valid stats.
Finally, once again, — YES we SHOULD ignore anecdotal evidence because it is, well, ANECDOTAL.
If no one will keep the records to have more than anecdotal evidence that is all we have. To ignore the only evidence in our possession is folly. The strength of that evidence should be considered and the methods used in collecting it should be transparent. The Times was clear about their methodology and its weaknesses. What it indicated to me was that further study was needed. At the very least I am sure the Pentagon has records of the criminal records of active duty servicemen and women. These should be made available (minus names) for study. My sense is that violent activity would see a spike during and post conflict but would remain comfortably below general populace levels for various reasons. I can’t support this with hard data because that data is either not kept or not made available.
If someone named Jeb moves in next to me and turns out to be a serial rapist should I conclude that the reason he was a rapist is that his name is Jeb and that other people named Jeb will likely also be serial rapists???
1) Yours is a poor analogy and 2) thank goodness Jeb is not my real name, I don’t want anyone thinking I am a rapist.
Most news stories in the NYT and elsewhere about vets are about health care or difficulties faced on their return home. Johnny came how and got on with his life doesn’t make for a very interesting story. It’s not a bias against vets, it’s a bias for the exciting or the tragic. That is and has been the state of our news for some time now. This has been exacerbated by folding news into entertainment divisions and expectation of similar profit margins coupled with the shortened attention span that is seemingly a requirement of the modern world.
The result of these stories has been largely positive. Moves to clean up Walter Reed and increased donations of time and money to veterans support groups.
Finally, if the characterization of this article and the characterization of the Left portrayed on this site and other more hyper partisan sites (red state, powerline, etc) were accurate this story would be all over the Left wing blogs. As it is they pretty much gave it a pass and the limited responses on these sites by Left leaning commenters has not in any way demonized the military.
Gene,
The NYT article states the facts correctly. You may not like the conclusions you feel they draw, but the facts are not seriously in dispute. That is the truth.
