DoE: "there's a lot of school shootings". NPR: "Not so fast..."

[Birds Away]

Trump doesn't give a damn about school shootings, so why would anyone think he wanted to boost the numbers?

TDS strikes again.

 

[seedubs1]

Some people on these types of gun forums think that if news is more centered than Breitbart, it's "Liberal MSM."

Sorry for not hearing the purple in your post. I agree, NPR is about as neutral as you can find. Lots of right wing people will read between the lines a bit too hard and will try to say that neutral reporting is Liberal MSM because it doesn't always fit their narative. Sure, NPR isn't perfect.....they are human after all, but they're about as neutral as you can find. They do criticize Trump, but I do recall them criticizing Obama as well when he was in office. IMHO, all public officials should be scrutinized and criticized.....even if they're in the party I personally lean most towards. A lot of people can't see that.

Sorry - should have been in purple. I generally feel they're good at remaining unbiased on the whole. There's a few that can't manage it, a have been regulated to non-news (e.g. Guy Raz). Diane Reim was the really openly biased one, and thankfully she retired.

Nevertheless, because they've been critical of the Trump administration (face it, there's a lot to be critical about), many INGO'ers dismiss them outright as "mainstream liberal media".

 

[IndyTom]

I've definitely seen articles from libs saying that NPR is too conservative, so I think they do a decent job of irking both sides.

 

[cosermann]

Per the article, the .gov’s definition included, “any discharge of a weapon at a school-sponsored event, or on school buses.” Even that’s pretty broad and would include a parent’s accidental/negligent discharge at an event, or a student who commits suicide in a school parking lot – neither of which we think of as a “school shooting.” So, even a real number based on that definition would be considered by many to be inflated.

Per the article, “The answer — "nearly 240 schools (0.2 percent of all schools)" — was published this spring.”

If we take the 11 incidents identified by NPR as “the number” (and even it is likely high) that’s more like 0.00009 of all schools, or 0.009%

If you read the entire article, everyone comes up with a different “number” on this; CRDC, NPR, the anti-gun “Everytown” people, and the ACLU.

Lots of totally made up stuff here - including incidents with knives or scissors getting conflated with “shooting” data.

All of this shows the data “collection” and quality are terrible. So terrible, I hesitate to even call it “data” which are defined as, “facts and statistics collected together for reference and analysis.” So terrible, it's worse than useless. It's misleading.

Calling these numbers "data" is an insult to data everywhere.

 

[seedubs1]

Yup.....and the .gov sending surveys to schools is ridiculous. This should be data taken from reliable sources.....not surveys. Hell, NPR found that one school was responsible for 20something reports of gun use because they wrote the wrong number on the wrong line. To call this "data" is ludicrous and a slap in the face to people that value true data. And it's a HUGE issue since this "data" is used to make big policy decisions.

Per the article, the .gov’s definition included, “any discharge of a weapon at a school-sponsored event, or on school buses.” Even that’s pretty broad and would include a parent’s accidental/negligent discharge at an event, or a student who commits suicide in a school parking lot – neither of which we think of as a “school shooting.” So, even a real number based on that definition would be considered by many to be inflated.

Per the article, “The answer — "nearly 240 schools (0.2 percent of all schools)" — was published this spring.”

If we take the 11 incidents identified by NPR as “the number” (and even it is likely high) that’s more like 0.00009 of all schools, or 0.009%

If you read the entire article, everyone comes up with a different “number” on this; CRDC, NPR, the anti-gun “Everytown” people, and the ACLU.

Lots of totally made up stuff here - including incidents with knives or scissors getting conflated with “shooting” data.

All of this shows the data “collection” and quality are terrible. So terrible, I hesitate to even call it “data” which are defined as, “facts and statistics collected together for reference and analysis.” So terrible, it's worse than useless. It's misleading.

Calling these numbers "data" is an insult to data everywhere.

 

[rob63]

For example, the Omro school district in Wisconsin wanted to know whether a consensual paintball-gun fight involving several students should be considered an "attack with a weapon" or a "possession of a firearm."

It saddens me that there are people filling out these kind of surveys that can't figure that out on their own. It tells you something about how much you should trust the data on pretty much anything. In fact, the whole report tells you how much you should trust data taken from surveys.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yup.....and the .gov sending surveys to schools is ridiculous. This should be data taken from reliable sources.....not surveys. Hell, NPR found that one school was responsible for 20something reports of gun use because they wrote the wrong number on the wrong line. To call this "data" is ludicrous and a slap in the face to people that value true data. And it's a HUGE issue since this "data" is used to make big policy decisions.

Where should they get the info from? The schools themselves should be reliable, and entering the wrong number on the wrong line does happen. They should double check, but...

For example, the Omro school district in Wisconsin wanted to know whether a consensual paintball-gun fight involving several students should be considered an "attack with a weapon" or a "possession of a firearm."

It saddens me that there are people filling out these kind of surveys that can't figure that out on their own. It tells you something about how much you should trust the data on pretty much anything. In fact, the whole report tells you how much you should trust data taken from surveys.

And this.

 

[patience0830]

I wouldn't classify NPR as fair. I do listen to them a lot though because they offer more indepth coverage on news than the 2 min drill on WIBC. By a lot I mean 2-4 hours a day.

Their word selection is what gives it away for me. Specifically the adjectives, adverbs, and verbs they choose to use. I don't think they balance their coverage very well either when they have on experts.

THIS. And the gleeful giddy tone that Steve Innskeep gets whenever he's reporting on what he perceived to be a Trump screw up.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Seems like we've had a thread on here some time back where someone (an article) had gone through and analyzed a bunch of so-called school shootings and debunked the vast majority of them as this NPR article appears to.

Yes. I participated. Might have even shared it. It was the group backed by Moms Demand that was moving the goalposts. They posted a report showing a bunch of "mass shootings since sandy hook(?)" but their definition was looser than the FBI. FBI says 4 dead NOT including the shooter. Their data was based on 3 dead INCLUDING the shooter. Ridiculously, that means a lovers triangle murder suicide would be considered a mass shooting when its not. They used that higher number to try to say that the number of mass shootings had gone up, when in fact it had not. It may have even gone down if you just follow the FBI's data and ignore their skewed version.

For example, the Omro school district in Wisconsin wanted to know whether a consensual paintball-gun fight involving several students should be considered an "attack with a weapon" or a "possession of a firearm."

It saddens me that there are people filling out these kind of surveys that can't figure that out on their own. It tells you something about how much you should trust the data on pretty much anything. In fact, the whole report tells you how much you should trust data taken from surveys.

And dont forget the kid with a cap gun that was included. It also speaks to who is teaching our kids if they are so stupid they have to ask that question. I bet they would have asked if they should count games of tag if it was about fighting and improper rough touching of others.

THIS. And the gleeful giddy tone that Steve Innskeep gets whenever he's reporting on what he perceived to be a Trump screw up.

I too have to think that NPR is at least left leaning. Not as bad as CNN, but there is a lean. I wouldnt call it awful, but there is definitely a bias.

 

[seedubs1]

Are you serious, or did you intend to purple this? I’m assuming you’re serious, because no purple.....

It’s a shooting.....so I’d say they should get the data from police or FBI records.

But instead they sent a ridiculous survey.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems ****ing insane to me for them to have collected the “data” like they did with surveys. It’s the .gov for Christ’s sake. They have access to the actual criminal data and info that is gathered in the event of a shooting.

Where should they get the info from? The schools themselves should be reliable, and entering the wrong number on the wrong line does happen. They should double check, but...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are you serious, or did you intend to purple this? I’m assuming you’re serious, because no purple.....

It’s a shooting.....so I’d say they should get the data from police or FBI records.

But instead they sent a ridiculous survey.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems ****ing insane to me for them to have collected the “data” like they did with surveys. It’s the .gov for Christ’s sake. They have access to the actual criminal data and info that is gathered in the event of a shooting.

Nope, no purple. So instead of the schools send a survey to the police?

 

[seedubs1]

Re-read what I typed. There shouldn't be a survey.....period. The DATA should be collected directly from police agencies and the FBI. Surveys are not the same as a rigorous data collection process, and if this data is to be used to sway public opinion and/or make legislation, they better damn well get it right.

Nope, no purple. So instead of the schools send a survey to the police?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Re-read what I typed. There shouldn't be a survey.....period. The DATA should be collected directly from police agencies and the FBI. Surveys are not the same as a rigorous data collection process, and if this data is to be used to sway public opinion and/or make legislation, they better damn well get it right.

And how would they collect the data?

 

[foszoe]

A great example of what I am talking about was last week. On several NPR programs, they kept mentioning Trump was not attending the funeral or memorials for John McCain. I didn't once hear them mention he wasn't invited. To me that would have been an important detail.

 

[Alpo]

It would have been important if a funeral is important. A waste of time, in my mind. John doesn't care.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It would have been important if a funeral is important. A waste of time, in my mind. John doesn't care.

In this case he does. Or did. It was widely reported that he micromanaged the planning of his service and planned every last detail personally.

But normally I would agree with you. If a meteor crashed through my roof right now and struck me dead, I wouldnt care about what happens at mine.

 

[foszoe]

I can't help it if you are not as analytical as me.

It would have been important if a funeral is important. A waste of time, in my mind. John doesn't care.

 

[Alpo]

I don't wear Crocs. That gives me a leg up on any argument you make.

 

[shibumiseeker]

NPR, with the exception of certain shows, is generally pretty fair minded. I've read or listened to several pro-hunting, pro-firearms stories. One about female hunters and another on the need for sportsman to keep deer herds healthy have been discussed here on INGO before.

NPR is actually pretty unbiased. It may come off as liberal at times, but that's normally because of who they're interviewing. If it's coming off as slanted, you likely aren't hearing NPR's bias, you're hearing the bias of the person telling their story or opinion (not the reporters).

I've found them to be slightly slanted at times, but overall they do a pretty good job of reporting fairly, moreso that just about anyone else out there. The catch is, to someone far right or far left, anyone in the middle looks like the enemy.

 

[foszoe]

I don't wear Crocs. That gives me a leg up on any argument you make.

They're CLoggers!