NYT quotes 3.4 times as many men as women on A1

In what was is it "bad data"?

 

Good God man. The data is not skewed. The data is the data.

The conclusions you draw from the data are yours. If you want to make an argument that the Times is sexist, based on this data, despite the reasons that would explain why the numbers are what they are, that's on you. It makes you wrong, not the data.

 

I'm more concerned that Dick reads Slate first thing when he wakes up.

 

I am not defending the idea that the Times in sexist. The data is shit in proving that. What the story is getting at is the huge imbalance between men and women in politics and CEOs, which seem to get quoted more on the front page of the Times.

That data is showing that.

 

So then it's good data.

 

Depends on what you are trying to prove. If you are YF and wanting to troll to see if anyone wants to say the Times is sexist, then it is bad data.

 

I can poll a thousand people and come up with juice boxes as the most popular drink in America. I just won't tell anyone that the people I polled are children in day cares.

Is the data bad? No. I am just using it incorrectly.

 

But this is not an indictment of data as evidence. It's an indictment of poor data collection. Riptide seems to argue that data-as-evidence is inherently useless or, if I want to be charitable, not very useful.

 

Let's assume election stories were on 1A quite a bit last year. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates on both sides were all men, so that would account for a pretty high percentage shift.

This is like when Gannett said, "We need to quote more minorities, but athletes don't count."

 

Does the expression "wrong data for the application" make you feel better? "Bad data" is a more common term when you are looking at something, as in "bad data for what we are trying to find."

 

Who needs data for that one? It's obvious to everyone! [/sweedishspidermonkeyliberationfront]

 

Were you worried that, after yesterday, Bodie would claim your crown as dumbest guy on the board?

I did not say you argued the Times was sexist. I said you would be wrong if you argued that based on the data.

Now you're just making it worse.

An unscientific poll is worthless. That is bad data. It's not even data. It's just junk.

The information from the Times is not a poll. It's just raw numbers, and the numbers don't claim to make any argument on their own. That doesn't make the data bad.

If you misinterpret the data, that's not a reflection on the data.