|
||||
|
Co-directors:
Fellows: Recent Entries
Recent Comments
Recent IAJ publications,
presentations and workshops Postings This Month
AJ-related Events
AJ methodologies
Month Archive
|
Monday, May 28
The NYT DOES run a correction on its percentage screw-up
by
JTJ
on Mon 28 May 2007 04:36 PM MDT
So the NYT did backtrack on the percent-of-change error described yesterday without assigning blame. That's fine. But the correction suggests another big story that we have only seen parts of. That is, of all the U.S. presence in Iraq -- military and contractors -- how many and what proportion are actually on the streets and how many and in what capacity are in support categories.
Sunday, May 27
NYT needs to install a "math checker" on every copy editor's desk
by
JTJ
on Sun 27 May 2007 04:53 PM MDT
This weekend, friend-of-the-IAJ Joe Traub sent the following to the editor of the New York Times. Here's the story Joe is talking about: "White House...."
To the Editor: The headline error is bad enough (it's only in the hed, not not in the story) -- and should be a huge embarrassment to the NYT. But the error gets compounded because while the Times no longer sets the agenda for the national discussion, it is still thought of (by most?) as the paper of record. Consequently, as other colleagues have pointed out, the reduction percentage gets picked up by other journalists who don't bother to do the math (or who cannot do the math.)The headline on page 1 on May 26 states "White House Said to Debate '08 Cut in Troops by 50%" The article reports a possible reduction to 100,000 troops from 146,000. Thats 31.5%, not 50%. NPR's Morning Edition picked up the story from the NYT and also reported 50% erroneously. Joseph F. Traub The writer is a Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University See, for example: (NB: We could not yet find on the NPR site the transcript of the radio story that picked up the 50 percent error. But run a Google search with "cut in Troops by 50%" and note the huge number of bloggers who also went with the story without doing the math.) Colleague Steve Doig has queried the reporter of the piece, David Sanger, asking if the mistake is that of the NYT or the White House. No answer yet received, but Doig later commented: "Sanger's story did talk about reducing brigades from 20 to 10. That's how they'll justify the "50% reduction" headline, I guess, despite the clear reference higher up to cutting 146,000 troops to 100,000." Either way, it is a serious blunder of a fundamental sort on an issue most grave. It should have been caught, but then most journalists are WORD people and only word people, we guess. We would also point out the illogical construction that the NYT uses consistently in relaying statistical change over time. To wit: "... could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000..." We wince. English is read from left to right. Most English calendars and horizontal timelines are read from left to right. When writing about statistical change, the same convention should be followed: oldest dates and data precedes newest or future dates and data. Therefore, this should best be written: "...could lower troop levels from about 146,000 to roughly 100,000 by the midst of the 2008 presidential election." Thursday, May 24
GeoCommons (Another tip from O'Reilly Radar)
by
JTJ
on Thu 24 May 2007 03:26 PM MDT
Source: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/05/geocommons_shar.html GeoCommons, Share Your GeoData Posted: 23 May 2007 01:59 PM CDT By Brady Forrest
GeoCommons is a new mapping site that allows members to use a variety of datasets to create their own maps. It provides the free geodata, a map builder tool,the ability to create heat maps, and a map hosting site. An API will be available shortly. GeoCommons comes from FortiusOne, a Washington, D.C. company. The public Beta is going to be releasedWhere 2.0's launchpad. Monday, May 28th, at Where 2.0's launchpad. When building a map you can use one of the 1500 data sets (with 2 billion data attributes) that they have made freely available. The data sets vary widely and include things like "Identity Theft 2006", "Coral Reef Bleaching - Worldwide", "Starbucks Locations - Worldwide", and "HAZUS - Seattle, WA - Resident Demographics". As you can see below, data can be viewed in a tabular format prior to loading it onto a map. Data sets can be combined together so that you can see "The Prices of Living in NYC & SF" and "Barack vs. Clinton - Show Me the Money! " -- it seems to me that Barack has more widespread support.
Tuesday, May 22
O'Reilly Radar tips us to update RE online mapping
by
JTJ
on Tue 22 May 2007 12:02 PM MDT
We are finding O'Reilly's Radar an increasingly valuable site/blog to keep up with interesting developments in Web 2.0, publishing and the general Digital Revolution. Brady Forrest's contribution below is an example.
See http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/05/trends_of_onlin.html Trends of Online Mapping Portals Posted: 21 May 2007 04:34 PM CDT By Brady Forrest Last week there were several announcements made that show the direction of the online mapping portals. Satellite images and slippy maps are no longer differentiators for attracting users, everyone has them and as I noted last week there are now companies that have cropped up to service companies that want their own ... more » Sunday, May 20
Is Your Baseball Team Overpaid?
by
JTJ
on Sun 20 May 2007 12:53 PM MDT
An interesting piece of analysis and visual infographics posted today on the O'Reilly Radar site. See http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/05/baseball_team_overpaid.html
     Assuming you have a baseball team, Ben Fry will let you answer that question. He has created a tool for visualizing the salary of Major League Baseball teams versus their performance in 2007 (prev. As he explains: This sketch looks at all 30 Major League Baseball Teams and ranks them on the left according to their day-to-day standings. The lines connect each team to their 2007 salary, listed on the right.
The images above are captures of the beginning of the season rankings
(left) as compared to now (right). It looks like Boston is now at a
break-even point whereas the Yankees are sinking and a bit over-paid. I
wonder if any of the GM compensation decisions are made based on this
tool. |
Guests are encouraged to browse and search through all of this blog and its subdirectories. Please sign in or register and then add comments to the blog.
Login
Search
Fellow Travelers
AJ Digital
Tool-of-the-Week Interesting Tools for AJ
Recent Book Reviews
|
||
|
||||
