The biggest story on the front page (paper version, above the fold and all that) in the USA Today this morning was "Utilities cut off more homes." Examples of sloppy thinking are fairly common, but this was still remarkable. It hits on all cylinders. In the first three sentences, it manages to pull three major logical errors, misdirection, data selection and a biased source.
The silliness begins with the title which defines the thrust of the article. Any actual interest in such an issue would, one hopes, want to find an underlying cause, essentially an independent variable. The utilities are turning off power because the bills are unpaid, same as always. The utility companies are essentially irrelevant in this. The writer does mention 'skyrocketing' food and fuel costs but makes no attempt to sort out income, outflows, and utility costs in people's budgets.
To 'prove' the case, the reporter (Paul Davidson) brings out the other two corkers. First he writes "Electricity and natural gas shutoffs are up at least 15% in several states. Totals for some utilities have more than doubled." ummmm ..... data selection is your friend, eh? Why not just give the U.S. avg? The intelligent reader, far from being convinced, is left wondering why he selected that data .... does the rest fail to support his case?
For his third logical error, the writer pulls a quote from the head of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association. Is there any earthly reason to suppose this person unbiased? Energy assistance organizations advocate for and help fund those who are, or are in danger of, power cutoffs. This can be thought of as a noble effort, but there is little possibility of an neutral viewpoint.
Now, perhaps the author simply wanted to bash the utilities, seeing greedy plutocrats lighting cigars with $100 bills squeezed from the blood of the poor. Fine. Just write and editorial. Editorials on the front page, unlabeled, should be an embarrassment
.
No comments:
Post a Comment