Biased Journalism (article on kids with life sentences)
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9667158/

Read this article. Look at the numbers, then look at the volatility of the language.

It gives the number of kids in jail on life sentences, what percentage are for murder, and what percentage are under 15. The thing that gets me is that number. It's like 16% are under 15, of a small number to begin with, yet the article is written as if the courts are an "assembly line for life sentences for juveniles" (I may be paraphrasing the quote they used here, but it's the general tone of the article as well).

I just hate when journalists do this. They can't just report, they have to report in a way that generates the expected response - eg: telling us what to think about it. Yet, anyone with a brain (few Americans actually posess one of these, let alone know how to use it), can see by the numbers that we're talking about a very small minority here of what are probably very dramatic circumstances leading to it happening at all.

Just pisses me off.

Okay, 2225 currenly serving life in prison for crimes committed "in childhood", as they put it.
Soo... 1869 of them were OVER 15, or to put it differently, the age at which we've determined they have sufficient judgement to manage a motor vehicle.

That leaves only 356 who were under that age. Now, these 356 (along with the others) came from the pool of 2.9% of child murderers who were given life w/out parole, which means they're the WORST 2.9% of murder crimes committed.

Exactly how does this justify that the court system is an assembly line of life convictions for children who supposedly cannot reason for themselves?

Journalism is a funny field. It portrays itself as a source of information, but speaks by skewing and and heavy opinion leaning. There's an old Depeche Mode song that says: I think there are too many journalists whose main goal is to change the world. And no one seems to tell them that's not their job...

There's a difference between objective reporting and advocacy. Both are legitimate activities. Unfortunately, the rise in popular media and the diminishment of attention spans allows -- even requires -- the latter to masquerade as the former. I'm sure advertising revenues are up, though.

LOL. I'm sure. News is becoming more and more entertainment, rather than information. People want to see the crashes, the shootouts, the scandals. Can you imagine if a news show decided to go 50/50 good news/bad news? Reporting on good things that are happening, as well as bad? I'd love it, but it's ratings would crash....

Maybe it's because the general publics' brains are already full of important things like "reality TV" and other quality pursuits to actually stop and do something unique like "thinking" about information. Whatever happened to "questioning everything"?

I don't know, but I wish it would come back...

I question that. ;)

Question what? That it should come back, or that I wish it would?

I am confused- when it came to that comment by Bill Bennett you refused to even consider the context in your comments- you did not question anything other than that you considered it racist in tone.

So, are there some things you don't bother to question?