tainted data

[dnewton3]

Most of you who know me realize I am ALL ABOUT DATA. Real, raw figures drive my analysis and decisions in most avenues of my life. Raw data properly processed makes for logical decisions with a high ratio of reward, measured in some meaningful manner.

I have used the FBI data (as well as other reasonably trustworthy sources) to form my opinions and educate others on the risks of firearm ownership, etc.

And now this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/25/sho...tcmp=latestnews
Tainted data from the FBI, likely under political pressure, resulting from information gleaned in media sourcing. What are they thinking?

I'm not going to discuss the politics of this; taboo here. And frankly, I don't see that any particular party would have a moral high-ground here anyway. Let's just leave that alone.

What I am disheartened by is the apparent lack of moral fiber and unethical direction our society has slipped into. Raw data is paramount to good analysis, and hence sound decision making. Without trustworthy data, any manner of hope for a wise conclusion is lost. Our society is adrift in a sea of narcissistic self-indulgence and biased agenda. From corporate fiscal reports to climate stats to voter registration, and now FBI data. Shame on you; shame on me. Shame on all of us for tolerating this kind of behavior from anyone and everyone in our lives (and our government in particular) that distorts truth for a biased purpose. Admittedly, the world has never been one of total trustworthiness; I get that. But there were some barriers that were (formerly) invincible. The FBI raw data used to be granite-like in it's credibility. Not now; not anymore.

From nearly every angle in our lives today, someone is preaching to us about tolerance and acceptance, for any manner of topic. What about truth; what of the concept of factual reality? Tolerance based upon a lie is simply misguided at the least, and intentional bias resulting in deformation at the worst. What happened to the concept of discovering what REALLY happens, and then accepting that information without an agenda? Tolerating and accepting bad information, where it then leads to unjustifiable actions, is just repulsive to me. I abhor this. I loath it. Or, simply put ...

This sucks.


.

 

[Lapham3]

It's really nothing so new, but it is very pervasive. In my years I've seen much solid data twisted by others for their own adgendas. It does drive 'solid data' people crazy tho. Thoughtful and informed people don't usually buy in to this, but the 'herd' likely does.

 

[R80RS]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

What I am disheartened by is the apparent lack of moral fiber and unethical direction our society has slipped into.


What disheartens me is that we have a news media which, with a very very few exceptions, will see a serious breach of ethics such as you point out and then bury the story, in furtherance of a favored political outcome.

 

[RF Overlord]

Not to downplay DN3s post, but since when is Faux News a pillar of integrity...?

 

[eljefino]

Well written article by the media, on media, and on the "OMG we're first with breaking news" phenomenon. Step back and think about how often media writes about itself as an aggregate-- the New York Times, occasionally, is all that comes to my mind.

Fox News for all their opinion wrapped into news can write a straight piece once in a while, though they interview one of their own opinion writers as a so-called expert on the subject.

Correlation not equalling Causation is one of about a dozen argumentative fallacies. For example, if a sober car driver hits a legally drunk pedestrian, it's an "accident involving alcohol" and an organization like MADD would read into it as being "another drunk driver at fault".

 

[daves87rs]

Agreed....but I think the tainted news goes deeper than that...

But I'll leave that alone...

 

[Trav]

If you want t see some really tainted data look no further than global warming/climate change data.
Even NASA admitted they fudged the numbers. All it takes is one researcher to start fudging and the whole thing is suspect.
This is all politically and grant money motivated. Nothing is real, not the data, not the research, not the findings, not the conclusions, nothing at all.

Not trying to hijack the thread but its data of all kinds that is used to make laws, EPA regulations, increase taxes and all sorts of things. It suck when its all based on a pack of lies.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envir...-global-warming

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-arti...fudging-numbers

 

[doitmyself]

dnewton,

You realize that you are asking us to accept your stance based on a presentation that is exactly what you are against. You want us to believe you and your Fox article with no actual data presented.

Why should I believe you and Fox anymore than I should this CNN article: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621

"Gun Researcher John Lott Offers False Firearm Statistics Days Before Congressional Appearance..........Discredited gun researcher John Lott falsely claimed that "over 99 percent" of individuals who fail background checks to obtain a gun are law-abiding citizens,....Lott made untrue charges on background checks that are characteristic of his work. He often advocates for weaker gun laws by manipulating statistics about firearms and by touting his discredited research that purports to prove looser rules concerning the carrying of guns in public reduces crime."

Of course, CNN is no more reliable than Fox regarding facts. They "wisely" brought up the fact that TED NUGENT is the secretary of Lott's research organization in a lame attempt to discredit them.

When I read the background of Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center and its staff, it is very difficult to believe they are unbiased and do not have an agenda. Good research is all about finding the truth without any bias.

I still recommend everyone treat research "data" presented to the public very carefully. "Academic research quality" touted by Lott is not the lofty goal he purports. Again, your presentation above is exactly everything you are against: believe my side without any credible data presented, and no way for the layperson to evaluate the credibility, other than "Fox News and I say......."

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Most of you who know me realize I am ALL ABOUT DATA. Real, raw figures drive my analysis and decisions in most avenues of my life. Raw data properly processed makes for logical decisions with a high ratio of reward, measured in some meaningful manner.

I have used the FBI data (as well as other reasonably trustworthy sources) to form my opinions and educate others on the risks of firearm ownership, etc.

And now this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/25/sho...tcmp=latestnews
Tainted data from the FBI, likely under political pressure, resulting from information gleaned in media sourcing. What are they thinking?

I'm not going to discuss the politics of this; taboo here. And frankly, I don't see that any particular party would have a moral high-ground here anyway. Let's just leave that alone.

What I am disheartened by is the apparent lack of moral fiber and unethical direction our society has slipped into. Raw data is paramount to good analysis, and hence sound decision making. Without trustworthy data, any manner of hope for a wise conclusion is lost. Our society is adrift in a sea of narcissistic self-indulgence and biased agenda. From corporate fiscal reports to climate stats to voter registration, and now FBI data. Shame on you; shame on me. Shame on all of us for tolerating this kind of behavior from anyone and everyone in our lives (and our government in particular) that distorts truth for a biased purpose. Admittedly, the world has never been one of total trustworthiness; I get that. But there were some barriers that were (formerly) invincible. The FBI raw data used to be granite-like in it's credibility. Not now; not anymore.

From nearly every angle in our lives today, someone is preaching to us about tolerance and acceptance, for any manner of topic. What about truth; what of the concept of factual reality? Tolerance based upon a lie is simply misguided at the least, and intentional bias resulting in deformation at the worst. What happened to the concept of discovering what REALLY happens, and then accepting that information without an agenda? Tolerating and accepting bad information, where it then leads to unjustifiable actions, is just repulsive to me. I abhor this. I loath it. Or, simply put ...

This sucks.


.
Politicians lie, "you can keep your healthplan", right? They need their minions to back them up with "everybody knows" data.

 

[Whitewolf]

I'm very interested in this subject, since as those of you that know me are aware, I am from England. In the UK severe restrictions on gun ownership were introduced following a shooting in a town called Hungerford, England. This was the 1988 Firearms Act which made gun ownership very difficult but not impossible. Later, following another shooting at a school in Dunblane, Scotland, the 1997 Firearms act basically banned gun ownership (shotguns possible and rifles possible for hunting, but extremely difficult) with severe penalties (prison) for illegal possession. The interesting thing about all of this is that gun crime went up by about 100% in the 10 years following the 1997 Act! The why is obvious, only the bad guys had guns! In 2009 the Daily Mail news proclaimed the UK as " the most violent country in Europe", and what's more "worse than the USA and South Africa". Today the most dangerous places (if one can find unfudged figures) are London, Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham. Why am I telling you all this? It's because despite all of these facts the anti-gun PC people still seek out misinformation to support their position and distort the way in which crime figures are reported in order to deliberately mislead the public.

 

[Stelth]

There used to be at least the pretense of un-biased news coverage. Now even the pretense is gone. And, more apropos of dnewton3's post, one used to be able to expect truthfulness from certain government agencies that are supposed to be non-political.

Lies, [censored] lies, and statistics, as Ambrose Bierce said.

I have heard recently that the ice cap at the north pole is larger than it's ever been. I've also heard that it's smaller than it's ever been. I imagine both "journalists" have their statistics and sources. I wonder what the truth is.

Sometimes I look at the Fox, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Huffington Post, and other websites to see what the stories are. There is generally very little continuity in what seems to be newsworthy. There are editorials disguised as "news" articles, and in the stories about actual events, the writer or editor decides which elements of the story to emphasize or de-emphasize.

I sure would like to know what's really happening.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Not to downplay DN3s post, but since when is Faux News a pillar of integrity...?


I thought I would never see the day, what has the world come to, Fox satire doing a fact check.
Alas, the end is near, I am giving away my stash and moving to Utah!

 

[stockrex]

Dave is on the money, every political party has used their influence on so called agencies to push their agenda.
Remember wmd bush, he had the EPA kill a report on polluted cities in MI.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Stelth
There are editorials disguised as "news" articles, and in the stories about actual events, the writer or editor decides which elements of the story to emphasize or de-emphasize.


There's also an obvious editorial slant to photo editors, who have authority to choose whether a politician is smiling and handsome or preening under terrible lighting, shaking a fist, mouth agape.

Similarly, I saw a photo of a protester holding a misspelled sign with grammar issues. The subtlety for those of us who actually care, is that she, and by association her cause, are presented to us as being ignorant.

We don't teach our kids to look for this in civics lessons in school, and the "authority figures" who print papers and complain on TV want to hold their authority and not have you second guessing them. Stay tuned for the next crisis...

 

[dhise]

Holy [censored], data and fox news in the same post!

 

[hatt]

Quote:
What about truth; what of the concept of factual reality?
The truth hasn't been relevant in a long long time. You need lies and distortion to get your agenda through. Just look at stuff like Reefer Madness put out 80 years ago.

 

[zach1900]

Originally Posted By: dhise
Holy [censored], data and fox news in the same post!

says the man from Detroit...

 

[Kuato]

Integrity and common sense have both been trumped by money. Corruption is rampant.

 

[dnewton3]

Guys - this isn't about politics (at least we're not going to discuss that here). If we are all honest we'd all admit that anyone with a bias will try to distort the truth.


What this is about is the RAW data in the FBI files. This has historically been impervious to the manipulation of media and politics. Does not matter who breaks the story or reports the issue. The underlying concern I have is that the FBI data field is now suspect. It generally has been accepted as "clean data", accurate without distortion per viewpoint. Now, there is question as to the integrity of the raw data. Data manipulation in a study is always suspect, but RAW DATA has to be trusted at it's core, or every conclusion from there is suspect. Conclusions can always be viewed from different angles. But data manipulation at the input level offers no ability to find the truth you seek.

The raw data is published when finalized; anyone can see it. I've used the files many times. I've not taken the time to look for a correlation yet, but even the mere suggestion that they are compromised is disheartening.


I'm lamenting the corruption (or implication) of RAW DATA at a once infallible source. Regardless of who's in power, who did it, who ordered it and who tries to conceal it, it sickens me.

I used to be able to trust the data; now I'll have to do my own tedious research every single time I want to review something.

If this were a drinking well, and it were known and accepted to be "pure", then we would all drink of it freely. But now that someone has claimed there is a taint to the water (regardless of basis of claim; be the claim true or false) we would have to "test" the water before each consumption.

I am NOT defending Lott, nor even saying he's right. I am angered that there is implication that the data has been adulterated. And if not, then the implication itself is just as corrupt. Either the FBI truly has tainted data, or the accusation has made us waste time on the implication of the taint because we now have to second guess and double research every single "fact" contained therein. I would be no less angry at the person who taints the data, as I would he who would make a false claim of the tainted condition.


Either way, we lose!


Thus, my comment about the downward slide of the condition of our society.

 

[morepwr]

It is pretty sad when you cant be sure of any info or stats that we either hear or read anymore. Whatever happened to integrity? Why is so difficult to tell the truth?