Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/06/2007 - 7:28pm.
Just to follow up on Cities for a second -- I think the point he makes is a narrower one than that which the "profiling/racism exists" posters wish to convey.
In short, Cities raises a longstanding and vexing problem with the Times's coverage of Metro issues, and particularly of racial issues in the metro area. As Cities asks, why bury an important (no matter which way you ultimately come down on the issue) statistic in para 24 of 27; why fail to mention the searches/arrest data at all; and why (as Tom and others point out) not at least mention that these data are raw numbers?
In my opinion, this goes beyond a mere ombudsman's problem, but rather is one example of systematic slanting and intellectual laziness and dishonesty on the part of the Gray Lady.
Just to follow up on Cities for a second -- I think the point he makes is a narrower one than that which the "profiling/racism exists" posters wish to convey.
In short, Cities raises a longstanding and vexing problem with the Times's coverage of Metro issues, and particularly of racial issues in the metro area. As Cities asks, why bury an important (no matter which way you ultimately come down on the issue) statistic in para 24 of 27; why fail to mention the searches/arrest data at all; and why (as Tom and others point out) not at least mention that these data are raw numbers?
In my opinion, this goes beyond a mere ombudsman's problem, but rather is one example of systematic slanting and intellectual laziness and dishonesty on the part of the Gray Lady.