Says economics reporter David Leonhardt, "Treating 2004 dollars the same as 1981 dollars isn't much different from treating dollars the same as rupees. The fact that 10 is a bigger number than 9 doesn't make 10 rupees worth more than $9; nor does it make $10 from 2004 worth more than $9 from 1981."
You should perhaps be made aware that "Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the [Rocky Mountain] News". (From her pocket bio on one of her editorials -- or "editorials".) She does not comment from ignorance.
I think the distinction Linda was making is that this wasn't a house editorial, which nominally represents the institutional views of the newspaper as a whole.
That said, even though "Public Editor" (or "Ombudsman" in more honest papers) is a particularly ambiguous position on a newspaper, I think it fair to represent a public comment in a paper by the Public Editor as an editorial, both broadly construed and narrowly construed.
And I don't think RWP's short note misrepresented the facts materially.
Here's the free link:
ReplyDeleteNumbed by the Numbers when They Just Don't Add Up
Says economics reporter David Leonhardt, "Treating 2004 dollars the same as 1981 dollars isn't much different from treating dollars the same as rupees. The fact that 10 is a bigger number than 9 doesn't make 10 rupees worth more than $9; nor does it make $10 from 2004 worth more than $9 from 1981."
ReplyDeleteNumbers without context, especially large ones with many zeros trailing behind, are about as intelligible as vowels without consonants.
ReplyDeletedeath by data
numbers without context
It's not an editorial, it is Okrent's personal views as the (then) public editor. And it's from January 2005.
ReplyDelete"It's not an editorial, it is Okrent's personal views"
ReplyDeletePersonal views *are* an editorial. That's what an editorial is, particularly when written by an editor, such as Okrent.
You should perhaps be made aware that "Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the [Rocky Mountain] News". (From her pocket bio on one of her editorials -- or "editorials".) She does not comment from ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction Linda was making is that this wasn't a house editorial, which nominally represents the institutional views of the newspaper as a whole.
That said, even though "Public Editor" (or "Ombudsman" in more honest papers) is a particularly ambiguous position on a newspaper, I think it fair to represent a public comment in a paper by the Public Editor as an editorial, both broadly construed and narrowly construed.
And I don't think RWP's short note misrepresented the facts materially.