Lies, Damned Lies...
So, a survey of retired NYPD officers shows that many "felt pressured to downgrade crimes or discourage reporting of crime in order to improve crime statistics."
NYT, in its usual style of crack reporting (emphasis on "crack"), points out that the NY police department and an NYU professor with ties to the police department did their own study of the crime numbers and "found them to be reliable and sound." They also point out problems with the survey's methodology, though the survey and its results are not available because the researchers have to clear it with the policeman's union first.
Nevermind that it's pretty unlikely William K. Rashbaum (the journalist who wrote the article) read this report. The NYU professor's supposed study is not available on the NYU professor's web site, unless the NYT is referring to an all-together different study, which uses NYPD-reported crime statistics to show that the crime rate is dropping. That study does nothing to investigate the actual NYPD crime statistics. It just assumes the numbers are valid and then shows how great Mayor Bloomberg's policies are doing. No whiff of academic pandering there.
Congratulations, New York Times. You managed to stir up a controversy without saying a thing, without making corroborating information available (though theoretically that's what the internet is for), and without linking to anything except your own stories. You managed to do this, and put a bunch of numbers in your article, so the ignorant will feel more informed while actually having less information.
And then we have Andy Newman, who says the drop in crime "Feels Real", and Gosh, Guys, isn't that worth something?
At which point, I remind the jury that 2 years ago, people "Felt rich," even while they were racking up enormous piles of debt funded by phantom home equity. And that didn't go bad, did it?
Living in New York doesn't make you smarter. It just makes your stupid sound more eloquent.
NYT, in its usual style of crack reporting (emphasis on "crack"), points out that the NY police department and an NYU professor with ties to the police department did their own study of the crime numbers and "found them to be reliable and sound." They also point out problems with the survey's methodology, though the survey and its results are not available because the researchers have to clear it with the policeman's union first.
Nevermind that it's pretty unlikely William K. Rashbaum (the journalist who wrote the article) read this report. The NYU professor's supposed study is not available on the NYU professor's web site, unless the NYT is referring to an all-together different study, which uses NYPD-reported crime statistics to show that the crime rate is dropping. That study does nothing to investigate the actual NYPD crime statistics. It just assumes the numbers are valid and then shows how great Mayor Bloomberg's policies are doing. No whiff of academic pandering there.
Congratulations, New York Times. You managed to stir up a controversy without saying a thing, without making corroborating information available (though theoretically that's what the internet is for), and without linking to anything except your own stories. You managed to do this, and put a bunch of numbers in your article, so the ignorant will feel more informed while actually having less information.
And then we have Andy Newman, who says the drop in crime "Feels Real", and Gosh, Guys, isn't that worth something?
At which point, I remind the jury that 2 years ago, people "Felt rich," even while they were racking up enormous piles of debt funded by phantom home equity. And that didn't go bad, did it?
Living in New York doesn't make you smarter. It just makes your stupid sound more eloquent.