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.
Yeah, so have you dug into the stats to find out the percentage of those people that are dying from heart disease that are over 70?
Also what is considered an article about terrorism? If the NYT mentions 9/11 in one sentence in an article does that become an article about people dying of terrorism?
The methodology of gathering and compiling data in statistics is relevant, and that’s before we get into analysis.
As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This graph is likely way more biased than the implied accusation of bias leveled on the NYT could ever be.
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.
Yeah, so have you dug into the stats to find out the percentage of those people that are dying from heart disease that are over 70?
Also what is considered an article about terrorism? If the NYT mentions 9/11 in one sentence in an article does that become an article about people dying of terrorism?
The methodology of gathering and compiling data in statistics is relevant, and that’s before we get into analysis.
As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This graph is likely way more biased than the implied accusation of bias leveled on the NYT could ever be.