At first sight it seems to me that the coverage being positivelly correlated with how unusual a death is and the number of people dying in a single event, would explain that graph.
I bet if we dig into the details of the Accidents class we would see a pattern were uncommon kinds of accidents and/or those with a large number of deaths (“man killed by falling crane”, “plane crash”) get lots of coverage whilst common kinds of accidents with few victims per event (“a car crash involving a single car”) get a lot less coverage.
Yeah, it’s not a conspiracy. They sell clicks, or “public interest” if you want to be generous. It’s just that in doing so, they present a scary, distorted version of the world.
“Joe Boomer, 85, chronic smoker and alcoholic, dies of heart attack, none of his family were surprised.” is not exactly an intresting article to read lol.
Back when I had a physical newspaper I enjoyed reading the Obituaries
Exactly. People want drama so crimes are more often reported by the media.
Live 85 years as a smoker and alcoholic - I will take it as a win.
Its really bothering me that 2.1% was listed above 2.2% at the suicide covid bars.
The
2.1was2.19truncated.
The2.2was2.18rounded.Actually?
I have no idea, unfortunately
It’d be neat to see some other news outlets as well. I’m sure there’s a massive difference.
I doubt it.
NGL… let’s be real here.
Your average New York Joe Blowhole who’s 67, obese, diabetic and smoked since he was 15 isn’t going to be as newsworthy a story as a murder is, the day he drops dead of a heart attack in his living room.
Outside of the obit a family member puts in the paper, why would the newspapers report on such an everyday death?
Natural causes of death, are ho-hum.
The newspapers report on the things that aren’t the run-of-the-mill, occurrences.
True, but/and let’s consider something like a more conservative outlet (relative to NYT) in 2023. Who’s president? What issues are getting talked up pre-election? I’m guessing we’ll see something like drugs and homicide taking a massive chunk of the news relative to what the NYT reported. Even regional news will differ — ever turn on the daytime news in Las Vegas? It’s all car chases and interviews with shooting witnesses. You’d think nothing else happened in the world. Just an interesting experiment.
Oh Yeah, to that, definitely. I always get a chuckle out of the Fox TV stations across the country that will have local horror stories… Sometimes absolutely lurid in detail.
The reporting vogue seems to be Families Gone Bad in the Upper Midwest…
Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news.
Wouldn’t it be the other way around? Or am I missing something?
It threw me off too. They’re saying dogs tend to bite people. It’s not really a story. Now if someone bit a dog, there might be something to talk about.
In other news: The obese Tom from next door got a heart attack and died. The 84-year-old grandma from across the street is still in hospital, and the cancer is getting worse. Stay tuned to find out if she is still alive tomorrow.
On the left: shit happens
On the right: humans are doing stupid shit
I think the OP is trying to express that the New York times is distorting the news. Perhaps true, but humans doing stupid shit will always sell a newspaper.
It seems to me that the right’s answer to cancer and heart disease is that shit happens. The left wants universal healthcare and public funding of medical research.
Yeah, I also don’t think writing an article every time someone dies from cancer or a heart attack would benefit anyone.
I feel like hearing more kids dying with ass cancer stories and heart disease deaths and people dying from preventable diseases stories would probably shift people away from focusing just on guns and homicide and maybe actually cause people to care about science and solving those other things.
Not that those are good to not focus on, just that there’s already an ongoing anti vs pro gun conversation going and at least if we talk about something else that’s proportional causing deaths… well, I doubt there are many “pro-cancer” people out there (but I know it’s non-zero).
I guess I just want some positive momentum on something at this point.
It doesn’t have to be an accusation of distortion. Can also just be a reminder that every day reality is not what we read in the paper or see in movies.
I’ve had various family members die from all of the most common things in the top 2/3 of the causes of death. It sucks. But I wouldn’t want there to be a story about it in the NY Times about it… because why would they do that?
They’re journalists not doctors, treating heart disease and cancer isn’t their jobs and it’s not all that interesting to write about.
If they reported on heart disease as much as terrorism and homicide you might have things like properly funded healthcare and high quality food regulations, instead you get militarised police.
What the public perceives as a danger is more important than what flashy thing sells.
Having family members die of these things doesn’t make people aware heart disease exist? It’s only if it’s reported in the New York Times reports on it that makes people aware of things?
And no it’s not all that flashy when my grandfather dies of a heart attack at the age of 87. That’s part of your stats on the common causes of death, right? It’s sad for those that knew him, but do you expect a story about an octogenarian dying of a heart attack to make the front page of the NY Times? What would that accomplish more than an obituary stating people should give to a charity in lieu of flowers? Maybe with some more funding to medical research my grandfather could’ve lived to 88 or 89! But the damn NY Times decided it was more important to report on someone dying in the prime of their life instead of elderly people dying. Those insensitive bastards!
Not everyone has the privilege of their family members making it to their 80s or later. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer. I’ve had family members die in their 40s, 50s, 60s, but almost never later than 70s.
Why does it matter if journalists report on this stuff more? Because a crazy amount of people are dying from these top causes, and they are not just “shit that happens.” They have causes, and they are preventable.
Isn’t this normal for news? The whole dog bites man, man bites dog thing?
I have a really hard time with drug overdose being it’s own thing. That sounds a lot like ignoring the large number of intentional overdoses that happen.
Heart disease, cancer, etc are part of the plan. Both boring and too close to home. Terrorism and homicide are suitable scary, morally charged, and far enough removed from most people’s lives to not have to be mostly abstract fears.
Heart disease, cancer, etc are part of the plan.
exactly. they can’t exactly have you all worried about the byproducts of their industries. Worry about that guy who’s different, don’t care about the planet we’re burning
And now let’s see how much outside of the “homicide” and “terrorism” on the right bar are celebrities!
I’m assuming that 40 of the 42% of homicide coverage was that one CEO.
It’s not a homicide if they aren’t human
Now now, they are human, just not humane.
They are also psychopaths.
Source?
A disproportionate amount, anyway. And then there’s homicides that only get covered locally as well, because it’s just some poor person.
2% from suicide !?
Yup. Mass shootings, drunken arguments that go too far, and spousal killings are flashy and stick in the public’s mind. But, the largest epidemic stemming from the omnipresence of firearms in America is self-inflicted gunshots.
My thought exactly. +1% chance to die from yourself rather than someone else
It used to be terrorism all the time, have they replaced that with simple homicide now? Definently needs a new war then!
Going to Iran to defend America from terrorism again this weekend according to rumours.
I wonder how the comparison would look if you compared years lost per type of death?
That is, old people die of heart disease and cancer. Young people die of accidents and violence.
