NYT quotes 3.4 times as many men as women on A1

[Dick Whitman]

Interesting study:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/17/new_york_times_sourcing_sexism_the_paper_quotes_3_4_men_for_every_woman.html

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Amazing, considering how much women talk.

 

[BTExpress]

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

 

[Riptide]

Data can be manipulated to support any argument.

False.

That wasn't a question.

Court is adjourned, counselor.

 

[Chris17]

Could these statistics be used to support the argument that The New York Times is anti-man?

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."

 

[Batman]

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

 

[Dick Whitman]

Data can be manipulated to support any argument.

False.

That wasn't a question.

Court is adjourned, counselor.

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.

 

[93Devil]

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?

 

[Dick Whitman]

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

 

[YankeeFan]

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

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.

 

[93Devil]

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

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.

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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

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.

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.

In what was is it "bad data"?

 

[YankeeFan]

The group the data is being collected is skewed. It's 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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm more concerned that **** reads Slate first thing when he wakes up. :D

 

[93Devil]

The group the data is being collected is skewed. It's 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 am not defending the idea that the Times in sexist. The data is **** 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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The group the data is being collected is skewed. It's 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 am not defending the idea that the Times in sexist. The data is **** 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.

 

[93Devil]

The group the data is being collected is skewed. It's 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 am not defending the idea that the Times in sexist. The data is **** 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.

 

[93Devil]

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.