I have got to say that someone is putting something in the water at the NY Times. I read this piece on recent income data and immediately sensed cherry picking of data, with a touch of populism. I swore that I would debunk it the second I got home, but within hours, several had beaten me to the catch.
The gist of the article suggested that taxpayers in 2005 earned LESS than their counterparts in 2000. That should immediately seem suspicious, as I see it. Why compare 2000 (the peak of an asset bubble) to 2005? Why not 1998 to 2005, or 1996 to 2001? The answer is that the writer already had his mind made up on what the results should show. The random collection of data is a stark indicator of that.
Fellow bloggers, many more keen on this subject than myself, rushed to point out the inconsistencies. Before long, other blogs had picked up the torch.
Citizen journalism, at its best. For the record, Johnston, the author of the piece, defended his article in the comments section of many of these blogs. I think this is incredibly admirable - a dialogue with critics lends credence to his arguments. I just wish more reporters at the NY Times were as courageous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment