Why Does The NY Times Rely So Often On Single Anecdote Trend Pieces Not Supported By The Data?
from the trend-pieces dept
A few months ago, we pointed to a NY Times "trend piece" on people so hooked on their gadgets that they get distracted. As we noted, the entire piece seemed to be based around a single anecdote of a guy who got distracted, and some scientific studies that don't actually support the underlying thesis of the article. I've noticed that this formula is all too common in NY Times tech trend pieces. We saw it more recently in the NY Times piece we wrote about claiming that cable TV was winning against the internet by purposely keeping authorized content offline, based off of a single anecdote of a guy who ditched his cable subscription only to go back a year later... just a day or so before the stats came out showing that people are actually ditching their cable connections.It appears that others are catching on to this rather questionable form of "reporting" by the NY Times. Jack Shafer over at Slate is calling the NY Times out for a similar piece which was so ridiculous that the article itself contradicts the central thesis:
In the 11th paragraph of its Page One, Aug. 22 story about how technology--cell phones, GPS devices, satellite-location devices, and even video cameras--tends to get visitors to the national parks into trouble, the New York Times confesses the inherent bogusity of its premise, stating:Shafer goes on to look at the details beyond the anecdotes and claimed single stat "climbing for the last five years" and finds that the NY Times' report is misleading at best:The National Park Service does not keep track of what percentage of its search and rescue missions, which have been climbing for the last five years and topped 3,500 in 2009, are technology related. But in an effort to home in on "contributing factors" to park accidents, the service recently felt compelled to add "inattention to surroundings" to more old-fashioned causes like "darkness" and "animals." [Emphasis added.]Yet the newspaper persists in advancing its techno-made-the-visitors-get-in-trouble thesis, headlining the piece "For Parkgoers Pushing Luck, Technology and Trouble Got Together" in print and "Technology Leads More Park Visitors Into Trouble" online.
Not precisely. The numbers, provided to me by the NPS, have been bouncing up and down. In 2004, the NPS conducted 3,216 search-and-rescue operations. In 2005, the number went down to 2,430 operations. In 2006, it rose to 3,623 operations. In 2007, it declined to 3,593 operations, and in 2008 declined again to 3,481. In 2009, the number rose to 3,593.So, given that we've now seen this happen multiple times, perhaps we can pen a "trend piece" about how the NY Times writes its trends pieces based on a few anecdotes, contrary to what the data actually says. They're really making a strong case for why we should pay up to access the site once that paywall goes up in a few months, right?Search-and-rescue operations conducted between 1992 and 2009 actually peaked at 5,761 in 1998, according to the NPS. Over that same period, the average number of annual search-and-rescue missions was 4,027, which means that the figure the Times ended up ballyhooing ("topped 3,500") is below the 18-year average. 
In other words, there has been no dramatic increase in the number of NPS search-and-rescue operations in the era of the mobile phone, the satellite phone, GPS, and the emergency beacon. Technology isn't leading more park visitors into trouble.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anecdotes, data, trend pieces
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Luddites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luddites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luddites
There is clearly a pattern in these unsubstantiated articles of anti-technology, and it's not a far leap to see that it serves the agenda of someone that wants the world to keep reading their physical rag.
Perhaps not even anti-technology, but more "Let's all go back to the good old days where you sit on your porch outside drinking coffee and reading the one newspaper that tells you what to think."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I lost? Nope, I have a flaming Garmin.
It's more likely that RW is right with his Luddite idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I lost? Nope, I have a flaming Garmin.
I think that's the scenario the NYT was painting. Surely it's true that people will take greater risks when they think they can rely on the tech to get them out.
Of course, the stats just don't support the NYT scenario, but the thesis was reasonable.
I think the reason you are right and the NYT wrong is just math. GPS, cellphones, etc have probably helped more people get out of the woods than they contributed to getting lost in the woods. Based on the stats, though, the overall effect seems negligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogusity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bogusity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bogusity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bogusity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bogusity
Wow, Bogometer doesn't even underline as a misspelling in my Firefox browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bogusity
If it detected itself as bogus would it be bogus?
"Wow, Bogometer doesn't even underline as a misspelling in my Firefox browser."
I noticed that, but microLenats does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curiosity + cat = ?
It's getting as comical as people restating what they just watched on Fox News the night before.
Next, Mike's about to post how the Obama Administration wants to shut him down. /bad joke... I think.
Of course, I have to admit, these articles are like train wrecks. One can't help but look at the carnage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try running this search on Google if you want to see how common this type of story is:
site:nytimes.com "small but growing trend"
It's certainly not limited to technology. Fashion, dining, travel, etc., all suffer from similar press release regurgitation reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a small but growing trend.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curiosity + human = !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curiosity + human = !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100823/04030810730.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't read the NYT article (I assume it's registration-walled), but I doubt there's anything in there to the effect of "while there are no data to support this position..." There's a difference between reporting on what somebody else is saying while questioning its reliability, and reporting on what somebody else is saying while pretending it means something else.
But if you have any examples of TD posting a story that takes one anecdote and makes it out to be a significant trend, by all means share them. Read carefully though, often he'll report on an example of something and link to several other examples of the same thing, while explaining how whatchamacallit is getting more common. In other words, backing up his headline with something meaningful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not even close to the same thing.
I didn't say it was true, I asked a question, expecting to get information in the comments. That's how things work here. I don't do "reporting," I write about things I find out there, with the expectation that people will fill in additional information in the comments. I made it clear that story was weakly source, and I posted it to find out what people had to say about it.
The NY Times presents these things as facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No truer words were ever spoken on this site. You barely qualify as a parrot for technology controversy.
I suppose we the commenters can comment about random bullshit, or just pose everything in a question format for the benefit of ourselves. Is Google actually a Chinese Front? Does Paul Allen actually own the planet earth?
What a fucking copout. Stand behind your stories! you have NO PLACE to judge others without doing the research you wish others would do in their own field.
"As we noted, the entire piece seemed to be based around a single anecdote of a guy who got distracted, and some scientific studies that don't actually support the underlying thesis of the article."
But if you actually read the article, they make no direct claim that cable TV is rising or declining significantly. They provide numbers with sources, something you did not do with your Silverlight article. You didn't look at the originating source, you didn't get another side.
"reporter, ye are not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nor is he above shameless self promotion by placing Dr before his name to indicate his PhD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how liberals funtion in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is how liberals funtion in general
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is how liberals funtion in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is how liberals funtion in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is how liberals funtion in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blogs.nature.com/noah/2010/08/24/how-to-write-a-neuroscience-story-for-the-publi c
Pretty much right along the same lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocritical!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't find it, but Jon Stewart pointed out Fox doing this with a crawler that read something like "George Bush greatest US President?" They're really saying that Bush is great, but they don't want to back it up so they put a question mark at the end. Stewart's analogy was "Is your mother a whore? I'm not SAYING she's a whore, I'm just asking. People want to know if your mother accepts money for sex." Anyway, like I said, that's not what's going on here but good to keep in mind. And if anyone has a link to that clip, please post it because it's pretty funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The NYT writer deliberately pursued his disproven thesis despite full awareness of the contradicting data.
To cherry pick the low year, 2005, and so say "has been climbing since 2005" is so dishonest that it goes far beyond exaggerating for effect.
The Silverlight article is the discussion of a rumor, a little hearsay, and some speculation...and is presented as just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lazy "reporters" and little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gadgets an asset, not a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with Numbers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem with Numbers
I also don't think the ratio of visitors to lost makes that much of a difference. The important numbers (that are not provided) would be how many idiots got lost because of a GPS. I don't think it's physically possible for the number of lost people to go up due to GPS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Problem with Numbers
I would guess that weather would be the most potent of the hundreds of different factors at play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How I love it
What a joke. They should be charged with fraud for daring to call themselves a "news organization".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's ALWAYS a trend
Trends are anything a writer or editor thinks they are. The problem here is that while you can dash off a piece about trends in fashion with no facts whatever to back it up because no one will fact check you. Same with movies, plays or tv shows.
This bit of nonsense strays more to hard news which requires some, a little I hope, fact checking instead of the almost none the errors indicate.
If is a surprise that getting too close to a bison will invite a charge? No.
Is it a surprise that feeding a bear may, in some cases with grizzlies, kodiaks and almost always with polar bears ends up with the feeder becoming lunch themselves?
Is is a surprise that anyone with a camera might end up falling into a big hole if they're not paying attention be it a pin-hole, film, bad cell phone camera, 35mm film or whatever? No, it's called pay attention, regardless of technology?
Is it a surprise that there are urbanoid jerks who suddenly appear in summer in the woods or on the water (fresh or salt) that have no idea and have made no preparation for what they're about to get into? No, because these people have a Disnified idea that the wild is a nice friendly place where all the animals sing and dance and wouldn't feel threatened by or afraid of the top predator on the planet? Try telling a Wolverine to sing and dance!
It's also no surprise that some of "genus urbanoid" would press the panic button when there's no need to. They get one chance here and next time they're told to get in the chopper which has changed from Search and Rescue to RCMP and taken back to the detachment and charged with being a public nuisance or anything else the creative constable can come up with at the time. (At sea, in these parts, its the Coast Guard and oh boy can these people learn the finer points of maritime and naval law in a hurry!)
In the meantime, I have to agree with SR84 that these devices are invaluable to air/sea/land search and rescue and save valuable time when there is a real emergency which, sadly, there often is when "genus urbanoid" wanders off without preparation and gets lost or finds themselves suddenly between a mama cougar and her cub despite all the evidence that there's a big cat around any maybe one should be careful and make a lot of noise to tell mama cougar to collect her cub(s) before you get there.
No doubt the "reporter" and "editor" of this piece are members of "genus urbanoid" who do things any member or "genus rural" would think three times about doing. Makes for a good laugh of two at the pub or coffee shop, mind you!
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not doing your research is even worse
Matt Richtel wrote a whole series of articles on this topic, not the simple one off anecdote that TD would have you believe. He also won a Pulitzer for the series. So if you buy that he's not rigorous and an actual journalist you may as well right off the Pulitzer prize, the people that make that decision and hell, why not all print journalists while you're at it?
Speaking of common trends:
1) Find something that tech related people will take offense to. I.E Technology may have some downsides
2) Post a couple of links to examples that may or may not be in context
3) Make snarky and trite comments that have no real journalistic value and smack of opinionated truthiness
4) Boom! Tech blog filler post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not doing your research is even worse
We weren't discussing the series, we were discussing his awful story from June 6th of this year, for which he DID NOT win a Pulitzer.
He also won a Pulitzer for the series.
No, he wont the Pulitzer for a series he wrote in 2009.
And you accuse me of not doing research?
So if you buy that he's not rigorous and an actual journalist you may as well right off the Pulitzer prize
I see. So if you win a Pulitzer prize, no one is ever allowed to question the crappy pieces you "right" (sic)?
he people that make that decision and hell, why not all print journalists while you're at it?
Because that would be dumb.
1) Find something that tech related people will take offense to. I.E Technology may have some downsides
2) Post a couple of links to examples that may or may not be in context
3) Make snarky and trite comments that have no real journalistic value and smack of opinionated truthiness
4) Boom! Tech blog filler post!
Can you point to an example of us actually doing that?
No?
Ok, go away now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not doing your research is even worse
No, no, no. You're doing it wrong. It's "Steak dinner boom!"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&q=steak+dinner+boom&aq= 0p&aqi=g-p1g1&aql=&oq=steak+dinner+boom+&gs_rfai=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've actually been on a search and rescue team...
Technology has been putting inexperienced people in harms way for some time and the worst offender is probably not digital devices but clothing and modern materials. Stuff like GoreTex, synthetic fleece and other materials have allowed people to venture into situations that would have taken real courage 30-40 years ago when all you had was wool and waxed cotton. And the price of such tech has been coming down for years.
The worst rescue I was on resulted in me spending the night with no tent on Mt. Katahdin one cold November when two idiots decided that a credit card was all you needed to climb it (they bought $thousand in gear + a book). No high tech gadgets were needed for them to get stuck.
I would say that people having cell phones is both a blessing and a curse when you are rescuing people. In my day ;-) they were very rare, so just finding someone could take days by which time they were in serious trouble or dead. Now, with triangulation, it's a lot easier, with the downside people call for help more.
On balance, I'd rather they call for help more than haul out a dead body, even if it is unnecessary sometimes. Besides, if tech gives people better access to wilderness areas, then maybe they'll be more interested in protecting and preserving them, which is a good thing, IMHO.
But if you are looking to blame tech for more people in trouble, it's GoreTex, Thinsulate and Vibram that's to blame, not electronics....
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]