1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NYT quotes 3.4 times as many men as women on A1

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dick Whitman, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Interesting study:


    The endless trend pieces about how women accessorize, parent, and hook up today have failed to materialize into equal representation across the newspaper. In the Times, men are individuals who are quoted to represent countries, corporations, academics, and citizens; women are quoted to represent other women.
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    This is shocking given the vast vast prevalence of women in leadership roles of countries, corporations and universities. The Times must be going out of its way to snub these higher-ranking women. I mean, why quote Barack Obama when you can quote Michelle?
  3. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Amazing, considering how much women talk.
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Next week, Slate tackles the phenomenon that the sun seems to be hotter than the moon.
  5. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Court is adjourned, counselor.
  6. Chris17

    Chris17 Member

    Theoretically, yes they could.

    There are 195 countries in the world (according to US State Dept). There are 19 female heads of state, and176 male.
    In the Fortune 500, there are 21 female CEOs, leaving something around 479 of those positions to men.

    By only quoting them on a 3.4:1 ratio, the Times is clearly anti-male!

    "Data can be manipulated to support any argument."
  7. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    I bet women are quoted more in the cooking section and childcare blog, where they belong.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    This thread demonstrates exactly the opposite. If one uses data sloppily or without proper context, their argument will not long stay afloat. Can you support any argument with data? You can. Will an argument based upon poorly interpreted data hold up? No.

    As a side note, it makes you look big when you attach shots at people's profession to every argument you make. Ad hominem attacks are always useful. You should keep using them.
  9. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    So data holds up until someone says your data is bad, then you say your data is good, then she say it's bad, then he says it's good, then she says it's bad, then he says it's good...

    Should we take this to the baseball thread?
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure what the argument is here. That facts don't count?
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    If Devil is backing up Bodie's side of an argument, and Riptide's joined them as well, that just lessens what was already a terribly argued point.
  12. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    If you're smart enough at math, you can work numbers. People who are good enough at math can see when the numbers are getting worked. And Bodie is not on this thread. Get better at trolling.

    And Chris17 is right. The group the data is being collected is skewed. It's bad data.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page