* Typical of most data, the shorter the crime data timeframe, the less useful the analysis. IOW, daily, weekly, monthly data don't tell much of a story and can be more easily manipulated/misunderstood. Even year-over-year data has limits. The most meaningful basis for comparison is over 5, 10, even 20 years - in order to understand crime trends. Yet media crime articles are almost always short-term and largely anecdotal, focusing on individual (scary) events while failing to provide Big-Picture contextual analyses. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
* The American public clearly has little objective understanding of actual crime rates, coupled with the fact that the press, including the MSM, does a dismal job of reporting on crime. Considering that certain politicians, and the "news" agencies that support those pols, have a vested interest in keeping the public unsettled about the threat of crime, the misconceptions are somewhat understandable. You tried to educate us in Glenn Thrush's 5/26/24 NYT article, but your comment was excerpted and buried deep.
What fascinates me is that so many of our citizens are determined that to believe that crime rates are high and that they are at personal risk of victimization, even when statistically, their odds of that are extremely low (excepting those who do live in the well-identified high crime zip codes). Commenters to Crime articles twist themselves in knots denying the reality that crime rates are generally historically low. They insist, inaccurately, that most law agencies don't report crimes, that gun laws (such as they are) aren't enforced, that "where I live crime isn't bad but over there in (XXX), it's dangerous", yada… What are your thoughts on this, also?
A couple of questions, Jeff:
* Typical of most data, the shorter the crime data timeframe, the less useful the analysis. IOW, daily, weekly, monthly data don't tell much of a story and can be more easily manipulated/misunderstood. Even year-over-year data has limits. The most meaningful basis for comparison is over 5, 10, even 20 years - in order to understand crime trends. Yet media crime articles are almost always short-term and largely anecdotal, focusing on individual (scary) events while failing to provide Big-Picture contextual analyses. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
* The American public clearly has little objective understanding of actual crime rates, coupled with the fact that the press, including the MSM, does a dismal job of reporting on crime. Considering that certain politicians, and the "news" agencies that support those pols, have a vested interest in keeping the public unsettled about the threat of crime, the misconceptions are somewhat understandable. You tried to educate us in Glenn Thrush's 5/26/24 NYT article, but your comment was excerpted and buried deep.
What fascinates me is that so many of our citizens are determined that to believe that crime rates are high and that they are at personal risk of victimization, even when statistically, their odds of that are extremely low (excepting those who do live in the well-identified high crime zip codes). Commenters to Crime articles twist themselves in knots denying the reality that crime rates are generally historically low. They insist, inaccurately, that most law agencies don't report crimes, that gun laws (such as they are) aren't enforced, that "where I live crime isn't bad but over there in (XXX), it's dangerous", yada… What are your thoughts on this, also?
Realizing that DC isn’t a state, for these purposes how it treats crime data should still be included in this summary.
Thanks Jeff. Best, Len.
"...be cautious when speaking definitively about data on official state UCR websites..."
I have a problem speaking anything definitively about anything "official". Color me jaded... LOL