For a while many on the left argue that criticizing the war does not mean they don’t support the troops. I would be the first to agree that dissenting opinion on war decisions does not mean you don’t support the actual soldiers carrying out those decisions. However, war supporters rarely point to examples where a war critic simply gives a dissenting opinion. Most often the war critic commits a egregious error which basis indicates a lack of support for the troops.

Recently the NYTimes posted a massive front page article about how there have been 121 homicides caused by soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The inference was to indicated the wars are causing war veterans to be more violent because of their service. So shoddy was their analysis that one must draw the conclusion that those involved in the article do not, in fact support our troops. For you see, if they actually did support our troops, that concern for our troops would of translated into motivation to do some very basic statistical analysis just to insure validity. Since they failed to do so, one must conclude they lacked the motivation of getting it right because they ultimately do not support the troops. For the purpose of the story, the tragedy that these murderous soldiers is yet another liberal tool to show that war is wrong. When you are using soldiers as tools to advance your political agenda critics are right to say you don’t support the troops.

Pajamas Meidia has more details:

The Times found, “121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.”

Bruce Kesler of the Democracy Project was among the first to note that despite finding the time to pen 6,253 words in this first article of the series, “the New York Times could not find words to put the 121 cases of physical violence by vets in full perspective,” by providing the context of how these deaths measure up against the number of deaths attributed to similar civilian demographics.

In an article in the Weekly Standard, John J. DiIulio Jr. offered the much-needed context that the Times failed to provide.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and other veterans’ advocacy groups are absolutely correct that not merely “many” but the vast majority of veterans not only remain completely law-abiding but go on to lead stable and productive personal, professional, and civic lives. Assuming 121 homicide cases in relation to 749,932 total discharges through 2007, 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have not committed or been charged with homicide.

And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has demographic data aplenty on homicide offending rates. For instance, in 2005, for white males aged 18-24, the rate was about 20 per 100,000. The Times opined that 121 was the “minimum” number, even as it counted veterans charged but not convicted with veterans tried and found guilty. Doubling the number to 242 would double the rate to 32.2 per 100,000.

Far from being an indictment against veterans, the actual homicide rate among civilians is higher in similar demographic groups.

On some level its no surprise to discover that the NYTimes, or at least the staffers that wrote this piece, don’t support the troops. This after all is the organization that published extensive details about a secret intelligence program used to track money being moved among terrorists organizations. A program that nobody anywhere thought was illegal.

Instapundit notes:

A BAD PRESS DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS:

Washington Post: Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

Wall Street Journal: Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress

Washington Post: Democrats Bow To Bush’s Demands In House Spending Bill

The Hill: Dems Cave On Spending

USA Today Editorial: Surge’s Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq – Democrats “Lost in Time”

Links rounded up by reader Amos Snead, who seems to be enjoying himself. As well he might.

Science has shown a bias in the way the press covers unemployment depending on what political party is in the presidential office.

We study the agenda-setting political behavior of a large sample of U.S. newspapers during the last decade, and the behavior of smaller samples for longer time periods. Our purpose is to examine the intensity of coverage of economic issues as a function of the underlying economic conditions and the political affiliation of the incumbent president, focusing on unemployment, inflation, the federal budget and the trade deficit. We investigate whether there is any significant correlation between the endorsement policy of newspapers, and the differential coverage of bad/good economic news as a function of the president’s political affiliation. We find evidence that newspapers with pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with pro-Republican endorsement pattern. This result is not driven by the partisanship of readers. There is on the contrary no evidence of a partisan bias — or at least of a bias that is correlated with the endorsement policy — for stories on inflation, budget deficit or trade deficit.

Like global warming it has to be true.

The worshippers were searched at the door and snipers stood guard on the roof, but Sunday’s Mass was a joyful one for more than 200 Iraqis who packed a church in eastern Baghdad to see the first Iraqi cardinal.

Under heavy guard and broadcast live on Iraqi state television, the service was capped by a handshake from a visiting Shiite imam—a symbolic show of unity between Iraq’s majority Muslim sect and its tiny Christian community.

There is no market demand for news of reconciliation and solidarity in Iraq. They would much rather hear about the umpteenth suicide bombing.

A common response to the assertion that the MSM decision to cover bad news in Iraq disproportionately is that readers prefer the bad news over the good news. Basically its the argument that if it bleeds it leads. This editorial talks about the massive amount of views certain You Tube videos have received featuring the US military succeeding in Iraq. The demand for this kind of coverage is strong enough that many people have sought it through alternative means. If the MSM editorial decision regarding Iraq coverage was dictated solely by the bottom line then these stories would of be featured prominently on the front page along with the bad news.

The failure of MSM to provide this coverage combined with the fact so many are actively seeking this coverage through MSM means implies that at least partly MSM coverage in Iraq is not determined by selling papers. Of course I have known this for quite some time its getting some of my readers on board were this has proven to difficult.

Jeez I’ve been gone for only four years and Omaha is falling apart.

gunman killed eight people and wounded five others Wednesday at the popular Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before apparently turning the gun on himself, police said.

I really hope that the media covers this extensively so as to encourage more of these tragedies.

Actually this give me an opportunity to make another point. While I think its bad for MSM to cover these tragedies extensively because its encourages this kind of behavior, I would not vote for legislation to control it. To enjoy freedom of the press I accept the noise of the press encouraging mass killings. There are other ways to constrain behavior other than through regulation. The most obvious is news editors recognizing the wisdom of not celebrating these killings through extensive coverage.

My prognostic skills tells me that some of you will respond that capitalism drives these editors to cover these events extensively. I think that is probably about right. However, markets are only an indicator of what people want so clearly there is a demand for this kind of coverage. In this regard, I would suggest one refrains from excessively indulging in this coverage so as to reduce the overall demand and in turn send the proper market signals that this kind of coverage is not desired. One can convey displeasure with a tragedy being transformed into a circus without using state coercion.

Speaking of wishing editors had wisdom, the way they played into the hands of terrorist in Iraq was despicable. Basic prudence suggested that the news editors realize they were being played like a fiddle and to find ways to cover the news in Iraq without so readily assisting our enemies. As such, they found way to magnify our enemies efforts while minimizing our own. A precedent that continues today with the surge being mostly ignored along with the improvements it has allowed.

Inevitably, this mass shooing will be covered through the gun control angle. Some of you will find yourselves sympathetic to passing gun control laws in an attempt to reduce mass shootings. However, I would argue that it might in fact be more effective to pass laws regulating how the press can cover these kind of killings. Setting up the argument this way pits one cherished right against another. Many of my readers would show disgust at the suggestion that the state should regulate press to save lives, but have no problem trampling all over the second amendment for the same purpose. As a libertarian, I favor neither. The government really needs to spend less time tinkering with my rights every time an unwise person thinks saving lives justifies diminishing my rights

Michael sends me this link to a Zogby survey showing the viewing preferences of different political groups. Its an interesting read.

Advertisers may be surprised to discover that a great place to capture moderates is on Fox News, where over 27% of moderates tune in daily. Unlike conservatives, though, moderates watch all the broadcast networks, and, like the liberals, NBC is their favorite, with 37% watching daily.

In various ways you all argue that the disparity in coverage could at least be driven by the probability that the democratic nominee might be either an African American or a woman. But there is a very real chance this election might see the first Mormon or pro choice conservative nominee. Why should a racial minority or female be more positively covered than a religious minority or atypical conservative?

Arguing that differential coverage exists primarily as a function of the uniqueness of the potential democratic candidates places you in the awkward position of explaining why the unique republican nominees are not enjoying the same kind of positive coverage. This seems to be a rather obvious counter argument begging the question why you commenters were unable to anticipate it.

I suspect the reason is because the underlying assumption that explains your appeal to the race or gender narrative, as opposed to a religious one, probably has something to do with your preference for liberal ideology. The narrative, in this case, is a celebration of the triumph of liberal ideology in overcoming race and gender discrimination. Certainly those are things worthy of celebration but on what grounds are they more praiseworthy than our first Mormon nominee? The press, like you, sees the ascension of a woman or African American as a more positive thing which clearly affects the coverage.

This point is subtle. Your implicit liberal ideology assumes that the excitement of a racial or gender nominee is capable of explaining differential coverage while at the same time ignores that a unique religious nominee should also enjoy that same effect. When arguing with many of you for the first time you were surprised to hear me state the MSM has a bias. At the time you saw the MSM as fair broker of news. This is only because your implicit ideology is congruent with narrative the MSM uses to cover stories which blinds you from seeing its bias. Someone whose ideology is not congruent with the narrative becomes keenly aware of the bias because their expectation of how a news story should be covered is frustrated. You are all very much aware of this when you watch Fox news.

It should be clear that journalist fall victim to their implicit ideology. This is one of the problems with the large news organization packing themselves full of liberals. The institution must lean left kinda like Fox news must lean right. If your ideology is congruent with the institute then you will not perceive the bias. We saw this same mechanism at work when the commentors failed to identify unique achievements if certain republicans become nominated when explaining why the press covers democrats more favorably then conservatives.

Should have a look at this study showing an effect in the MSM in how the presidential election coverage has favored democrats.

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

I have stumbled across an example that perfectly articulates what I mean by editoral bias. A post I was recently reading was reporting on how Fox News had covered the angle that perhaps Al Qaeda had a role in starting the fires in San Diego. Several days earlier I read a story on CNN about how Global Warming might of had a role in those fires.

The conservative agenda at Fox News pushed the editorial decisions to be about a terrorism link while the liberal agenda at CNN pushed the editorial decisions to be about global warming. Both of them are equally asinine explanations for the San Diego fires.