Posted by ALP on July 2, 2009, 15:18:12, in reply to "Re: Is this "real dialog"?"
Gunnar writes:
> My point is that if they monitor 192 sources daily one
> would expect a wider spread of sources cited. [etc]
You're conflating three things:
1. Number of sources monitored
2. Total number of sources cited in database ("wideness" of "spread"?)
3. Proportion of total sources cited for 90% of cases
This has led to confused logic...
- You've said there's a "contradiction" between 1 and 3. It doesn't follow (see below).
- You've said that their "spread" of sources should be "wider". You've also said that "they actually only quote a few different sources in their database". The latter claim is false. When you've found the correct total number of sources cited in their database, come back and let us know, but don't conflate it with numbers or percentages relating to "90%" of coverage.
Reporting of incidents/deaths isn't spread evenly among the sources on the list. Reuters picks up about 50% of incidents (relative to IBC's coverage). They are a great fvcking big news organisation, unlike Amnesty International, who are also on the list of sources.
If you still don't get it, think about the Bill Hicks riff on there being no connection whatsoever between widespread gun ownership in the US and high mortality-by-gunshot rate in the US. If that doesn't do it, try one hand clapping.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread