Leading up to the midterm elections in 2014, the FBI published*a report*that cited statistical evidence to make the claim that mass shooting incidents were dramatically on the rise in the US.
The overall impression was that bloody rampages like the Sandy Hook massacre and the Colorado movie theater shooting could be expected to occur more frequently in the coming years.
Several major news outlets ran with the story, reporting without much skepticism on findings that happened to dovetail nicely with a push by the White House and Democrats to enact stricter gun control measures and boost voter turnout. You can probably guess what happened next.
As*noted*recently by the*Wall Street Journal*and others, the authors of the study — Texas State University academics J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale — have been forced to backpedal, acknowledging that*their data was "imperfect" and asserting that the*media coverage of their findings "got it wrong."
In an ongoing exchange in*ACJS Today, a regular publication of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Blair and Hunter have defended their work, but they still stand accused of playing fast and loose with the numbers for political ends. As others have since pointed out, going all the way back to 1970 — instead of just the narrow 2000-2013 timeframe used in the study*— shows that there has been no significant increase in the rate of mass shootings.
The spat highlights several important issues about the way news is produced and consumed. For starters, you can't always rely on reports that simply parrot research.
The meaning of numbers often depends on who is counting what and why. If you want to actually get completely up to speed about your world by reading the news (rather than becoming a researcher of your own), you need to read the news like a defense or intelligence analyst.
Though professional intelligence analysts at the very high end of the spectrum rely on a variety of methods, and models to ply their craft, the fundamental job of any analyst really is to spot and sidestep bullshit.
Bulls**t is being used there as a catchall term for information that is untrue, unreliable, or will otherwise let you down when push comes to shove.
Bulls**t isn't exactly the same as willful deception, misinformation, or propaganda, although it can and does include those things. Bulls**t is about a narrative operating independently of any*concern for truth.........