FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
Ok, compare the NYT article to this one, which I consider much more professional: Bad Numbers Hide the Unexpected March 27, 2007: U.S. Army bureaucrats screwed up some statistics again. This time it was the desertion rate. No big deal. The army had 3,196 troops desert in 2006, 2,543 in 2005, and 2,357 in 2004. The desertion rate hit a peak in 2002, with 4,483 walking away. The army began to screen more carefully for adaptation problems, and has cut their number of deserters nearly in half. Desertion is the largest cause of losses in the military, larger than combat, and non-combat, deaths and serious (resulting in medical discharge) injuries.) The counting error, attributed to mistakes made by several clerks and supervisors, did not change the total number of deserters for the period 2000-2006. The corrected number is 22,468, compared to 22,586 for the bad count. Most of the errors were deserters being listed in the wrong year. ... Bad numbers are nothing new. For example, the Department of Defense used to report that the number of combat deaths in the Korean war were higher (by over 10,000 dead) than they actually were. This was because, early on, someone mistakenly added all the accidental deaths, world-wide, for the United States military, during the period of the war (1950-53), to the total combat dead. It wasn't until the 1980s that this got cleared up. Big difference in emotional impact from the NYT story, no partisan BS, and a clear statement of the actual impact. FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|