It's interesting how the exact same facts can be described in so many different ways, in order to imply vastly different conclusions.
-----
"This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco"
Implication - the county's law & order apparatus is dysfunctional and is oppressing the local population
-----
"This small Indiana county has more convicted drug dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - the county has a severe drug problem, and harsh efforts are needed to combat this problem
-----
"This small Indiana county catches more hard-drug-dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - either other counties are incompetent/indifferent in combating the selling of hardcore drugs, or this county is exceptionally good at achieving this goal.
-----
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
Implication - the county's law & order system is tough but fair, and should be a role model for others in pursuing White criminals just as vigorously as Minority criminals.
-----
The phrasing involved in "sending more people to prison" in particular, sweeps under the rug the fact that the people being sent to prison are dealing hard drugs, and spawning/enabling a generation of drug addicts whose lives are going to fall apart as a result. Instead of making the drug dealers the lead actors who initiated the subsequent chain of events, the headline is structured such that the county's justice system is portrayed as the lead actor instead. Neither wording is wrong, but they clearly bias the audience in different directions.
I trust the NYTimes more than any other American media source, but it's hard to deny that they too have their own spin that focuses more on one side of the story, more so than others.
Fair points, but did you read the article? There's more to it than that.
Donnie Gaddis picked the wrong county to sell 15 oxycodone pills to an undercover officer ... After agreeing to a plea deal, he was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison.
From 2006 to 2014, annual prison admissions dropped 36 percent in Indianapolis; 37 percent in Brooklyn; 69 percent in Los Angeles County; and 93 percent in San Francisco.
Prison admissions in counties with fewer than 100,000 people have risen even as crime has fallen
Just a decade ago, people in rural, suburban and urban areas were all about equally likely to go to prison. But now people in small counties are about 50 percent more likely to go to prison than people in populous counties.
“I am proud of the fact that we send more people to jail than other counties,” Aaron Negangard, the elected prosecutor in Dearborn County, said last year. “That’s how we keep it safe here.”
I think the implication of "Small towns are sending way more people to prison for petty drug crimes (like selling 15 pills to an undercover cop) than big cities" is supported by the article.
I read the entire article yesterday, long before it was posted here. Not sure why you think I haven't read it, or how your quoted snippets contradict what I said in any way.
My previous comment doesn't take a stand in any direction, or make any normative statements. Simply pointing out that there are multiple valid ways of headlining the exact same facts, each of which would bias the audience in very different ways.
Not sure why you think I haven't read it, or how your quoted snippets contradict what I said in any way.
You seemed to be saying the article was generic and the slant could be changed by changing superficial aspects of the argument. I'm saying that this is sometimes true but does not apply here. In fact, I thought your comment was so out of place that I wondered if you'd read the article. Apparently you have. Regardless, I didn't want your comment to dissuade people from reading the article and making up their own mind; it's well written and well researched.
The article makes the case that the county has a large drug-abuse problem, and also that the justice system is responding to this problem with very severe policing/sentencing policies, in a way that severely punishes not just Minority offenders, but also White offenders. In this regard, any one of the 4 spins can be reasonably made, given the facts presented in the article.
You seem to think that just because I pointed out the spin in the headline, I'm attacking the article in some way - that's a vast misunderstanding of what I said. Let me clarify this further: there is no concise headline that can possibly describe the article in a spin-free manner. No matter what concise headline anyone comes up with, it will be biased in one direction or another.
I certainly hope people read the article regardless, but I also hope that people will read the article while being mindful of how the wording used will bias them towards certain directions.
I read the entire article yesterday, long before it was posted here. Not sure why you think I haven't read it, or how your quoted snippets contradict what I said in any way.
I read the article myself, long before it was posted here. But I think you need to read it again, because you're misrepresenting the facts.
Whereas major cities like San Francisco and New York City are taking a different tact to dealing with a drug problem (shorter sentences and treatment instead of jail time), that small Indiana town is doing the opposite thing - longer jail sentences that don't match the crime committed.
That's the gist of the article, but that's not what you seem to have taken from it.
Does the article support them catching or convicting more drug dealers? I didn't read it in detail, but it seemed like the point was that the sentencing was different more so than catching or convicting people.
After reading your first quote, the punishment for this particular crime might appear to be too harsh. But, if you look into it, you will find out that: "Donnie Gaddis has previously been charged with trafficking in controlled substances and heroin, theft, breaking and entering, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult, domestic violence, shoplifting, and unauthorized use of property."
It may be supported but it's certainly not supported enough to be a conclusion. The emotional resonance is powerful but it is not all that is needed to make a case.
It's also distorted because an important detail is omitted from the headlines:
Dearborn County, Ind., which sends more people to prison per capita than nearly any other county in the United States
Per capita. Not absolute numbers.
The rural midwest is being ravaged by meth and opioid addiction and has no real prior experience with it. People find it shocking and support harsh treatment of the dealers bringing these problems to their communities. With a small population to begin with, the per-capita impact is higher.
Places like San Francisco have extensive experience with drug abuse since the sixties at least, the community is accustomed to it, and dealing small quantities is not seen as the biggest part of the problem so it's mostly dismissed, and where it is serious enough to send someone to prison, the impact on per-capita averages is much smaller.
There's another paragraph in the article which confirms that Dearborn does send more people to prison than San Francisco, not just per-capita, but even in absolute numbers. The headline seems to be accurate in that regard.
Clearly there is a bias, but I don't think it's wrong in this case.
I hate hard drugs because of the damage they cause, but it seems pretty clear to me (as an outside observer) that the United States' strategy of mass incarceration has been spectacularly unsuccessful in combatting the problem...
The US experiment with alcohol prohibition is an ominous precedent to the war on drugs. Prohibition caused organized crime in the US to flourish. When Prohibition was repealed, the machinery was in place, so it refocused on drugs, gambling, and extortion. So the war on drugs is a second wave effect, and we are responding in exactly the same way.
I trust the NYTimes more than any other American media source
this is no longer true for me. they no longer even pretend to be unbiased. i have noticed a marked shift to the left in just the last 2-3 years. i'm considering cancelling my digital sub.
i trust the pbs newshour the most, followed by public radio and certain satellite channels (potus, etc.). honestly i find both left-wing and right-wing media to be 'trustworthy' i.e. at least more likely to be honest about their own agenda than someone like the nyt who fancies itself objective in their reporting if not their op/ed.
when i go to huffpo or breitbart, i at least know exactly what the game is. and of course there are still the 'adult' publications with certain identifiable leanings like reason, the review, the nation, mother jones, etc that are still excellent.
The NewsHour absolutely seems the most trustworthy news organization to me, too, and I wish they had the same editors managing a full length daily newspaper.
The Washington Post seems to be improving, and the LA Times wins a lot of awards, though I never find it interesting when I visit the site. With the NY Times, people who like it often say it is great with the exception of any reporting which covers their own field of expertise—which is an awful lot like finding out that the NYT is bad at doing its homework before reporting on most subjects, or doesn't know how to hire domain-specific experts and editors.
I understand your point about organizations being clear about their editorial bias, but the two you mentioned take a lot of mental energy.
I suppose all sources of journalism change over time (except maybe The New Yorker). The Atlantic goes through altering waves of insight and coherence, then periods where they have lead articles claiming that torturers are just misunderstood. Or, The Economist over the past few years which seems to me like it is written by well-meaning, enthusiastic, but extremely young students, being replaced by Bloomberg and Bloomberg Business wee when it comes to snippet-length but serious reporting.
I think it is an appropriate headline. As far as drug crimes are concerned I think it is reasonable to accept the fact that the laws, reality and convictions are all in complete disarray.
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
I will be surprised if the gap narrows it probably means the state is putting random people in jail. Black people are far more prone to drug crimes than whites.
I will be surprised if the gap narrows it probably means the state is putting random people in jail. Black people are far more prone to drug crimes than whites.
Comments
It's interesting how the exact same facts can be described in so many different ways, in order to imply vastly different conclusions.
-----
"This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco"
Implication - the county's law & order apparatus is dysfunctional and is oppressing the local population
-----
"This small Indiana county has more convicted drug dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - the county has a severe drug problem, and harsh efforts are needed to combat this problem
-----
"This small Indiana county catches more hard-drug-dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - either other counties are incompetent/indifferent in combating the selling of hardcore drugs, or this county is exceptionally good at achieving this goal.
-----
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
Implication - the county's law & order system is tough but fair, and should be a role model for others in pursuing White criminals just as vigorously as Minority criminals.
-----
The phrasing involved in "sending more people to prison" in particular, sweeps under the rug the fact that the people being sent to prison are dealing hard drugs, and spawning/enabling a generation of drug addicts whose lives are going to fall apart as a result. Instead of making the drug dealers the lead actors who initiated the subsequent chain of events, the headline is structured such that the county's justice system is portrayed as the lead actor instead. Neither wording is wrong, but they clearly bias the audience in different directions.
I trust the NYTimes more than any other American media source, but it's hard to deny that they too have their own spin that focuses more on one side of the story, more so than others.
Fair points, but did you read the article? There's more to it than that.
I think the implication of "Small towns are sending way more people to prison for petty drug crimes (like selling 15 pills to an undercover cop) than big cities" is supported by the article.
I read the entire article yesterday, long before it was posted here. Not sure why you think I haven't read it, or how your quoted snippets contradict what I said in any way.
My previous comment doesn't take a stand in any direction, or make any normative statements. Simply pointing out that there are multiple valid ways of headlining the exact same facts, each of which would bias the audience in very different ways.
You seemed to be saying the article was generic and the slant could be changed by changing superficial aspects of the argument. I'm saying that this is sometimes true but does not apply here. In fact, I thought your comment was so out of place that I wondered if you'd read the article. Apparently you have. Regardless, I didn't want your comment to dissuade people from reading the article and making up their own mind; it's well written and well researched.
The article makes the case that the county has a large drug-abuse problem, and also that the justice system is responding to this problem with very severe policing/sentencing policies, in a way that severely punishes not just Minority offenders, but also White offenders. In this regard, any one of the 4 spins can be reasonably made, given the facts presented in the article.
You seem to think that just because I pointed out the spin in the headline, I'm attacking the article in some way - that's a vast misunderstanding of what I said. Let me clarify this further: there is no concise headline that can possibly describe the article in a spin-free manner. No matter what concise headline anyone comes up with, it will be biased in one direction or another.
I certainly hope people read the article regardless, but I also hope that people will read the article while being mindful of how the wording used will bias them towards certain directions.
I read the article myself, long before it was posted here. But I think you need to read it again, because you're misrepresenting the facts.
Whereas major cities like San Francisco and New York City are taking a different tact to dealing with a drug problem (shorter sentences and treatment instead of jail time), that small Indiana town is doing the opposite thing - longer jail sentences that don't match the crime committed.
That's the gist of the article, but that's not what you seem to have taken from it.
I think you need to read my comment again because you're misrepresenting what it says.
Does the article support them catching or convicting more drug dealers? I didn't read it in detail, but it seemed like the point was that the sentencing was different more so than catching or convicting people.
I thought you made a very well-reasoned critique. Always more than one way to interpret the data.
After reading your first quote, the punishment for this particular crime might appear to be too harsh. But, if you look into it, you will find out that: "Donnie Gaddis has previously been charged with trafficking in controlled substances and heroin, theft, breaking and entering, theft from an elderly person or disabled adult, domestic violence, shoplifting, and unauthorized use of property."
http://eaglecountryonline.com/local-article/couple-charged-d...
Perhaps repeatedly sending this person to jail just makes them a hardened criminal as described in the article.
It may be supported but it's certainly not supported enough to be a conclusion. The emotional resonance is powerful but it is not all that is needed to make a case.
Sure, in the philosophical sense. But you're saying what? That people shouldn't talk about it or the article shouldn't have been written?
It's also distorted because an important detail is omitted from the headlines:
Dearborn County, Ind., which sends more people to prison per capita than nearly any other county in the United States
Per capita. Not absolute numbers.
The rural midwest is being ravaged by meth and opioid addiction and has no real prior experience with it. People find it shocking and support harsh treatment of the dealers bringing these problems to their communities. With a small population to begin with, the per-capita impact is higher.
Places like San Francisco have extensive experience with drug abuse since the sixties at least, the community is accustomed to it, and dealing small quantities is not seen as the biggest part of the problem so it's mostly dismissed, and where it is serious enough to send someone to prison, the impact on per-capita averages is much smaller.
There's another paragraph in the article which confirms that Dearborn does send more people to prison than San Francisco, not just per-capita, but even in absolute numbers. The headline seems to be accurate in that regard.
Clearly there is a bias, but I don't think it's wrong in this case.
I hate hard drugs because of the damage they cause, but it seems pretty clear to me (as an outside observer) that the United States' strategy of mass incarceration has been spectacularly unsuccessful in combatting the problem...
The US experiment with alcohol prohibition is an ominous precedent to the war on drugs. Prohibition caused organized crime in the US to flourish. When Prohibition was repealed, the machinery was in place, so it refocused on drugs, gambling, and extortion. So the war on drugs is a second wave effect, and we are responding in exactly the same way.
this is no longer true for me. they no longer even pretend to be unbiased. i have noticed a marked shift to the left in just the last 2-3 years. i'm considering cancelling my digital sub.
i trust the pbs newshour the most, followed by public radio and certain satellite channels (potus, etc.). honestly i find both left-wing and right-wing media to be 'trustworthy' i.e. at least more likely to be honest about their own agenda than someone like the nyt who fancies itself objective in their reporting if not their op/ed.
when i go to huffpo or breitbart, i at least know exactly what the game is. and of course there are still the 'adult' publications with certain identifiable leanings like reason, the review, the nation, mother jones, etc that are still excellent.
The NewsHour absolutely seems the most trustworthy news organization to me, too, and I wish they had the same editors managing a full length daily newspaper.
The Washington Post seems to be improving, and the LA Times wins a lot of awards, though I never find it interesting when I visit the site. With the NY Times, people who like it often say it is great with the exception of any reporting which covers their own field of expertise—which is an awful lot like finding out that the NYT is bad at doing its homework before reporting on most subjects, or doesn't know how to hire domain-specific experts and editors.
I understand your point about organizations being clear about their editorial bias, but the two you mentioned take a lot of mental energy.
I suppose all sources of journalism change over time (except maybe The New Yorker). The Atlantic goes through altering waves of insight and coherence, then periods where they have lead articles claiming that torturers are just misunderstood. Or, The Economist over the past few years which seems to me like it is written by well-meaning, enthusiastic, but extremely young students, being replaced by Bloomberg and Bloomberg Business wee when it comes to snippet-length but serious reporting.
The lead actor here is the misdirected war on drugs. You sound like you're all for prohibition though, so I guess that did not occur to you.
Bullshit. Even out of hard drugs like heroin, only 25% or less of users become dependent. Cocaine is much much lower. Heroin is the highest one.
Meanwhile, 32% of tobacco users become dependent and that is perfectly legal.
I think it is an appropriate headline. As far as drug crimes are concerned I think it is reasonable to accept the fact that the laws, reality and convictions are all in complete disarray.
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
I will be surprised if the gap narrows it probably means the state is putting random people in jail. Black people are far more prone to drug crimes than whites.
I will be surprised if the gap narrows it probably means the state is putting random people in jail. Black people are far more prone to drug crimes than whites.
That's a very strong claim. The following article says the opposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white...
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, or are you speaking from (biased) assumptions?
Isnt it a widely known fact that more black people end up in jail than white people for drug related crimes? What other evidence do you need ?
Yeah, but they're more likely to be incarcerated for a crime than a white person who commits the same crime - even if both are caught.
Lol what do you think they're speaking from?