“When I realized that nothing would change by eliminating 15-year-olds, I left the numbers as is, again for consistency.”

So, this claims that 48% (ish) of 15 year old girls are married? Wouldn’t that have to be true for eliminating 15-year-olds to change nothing?

Otherwise, it would change something. If this is the skill of the reporter, his math, much less common sense seems to be lacking.

If he’s correct, that’d be a better story.
48% of 15-year-old girls already on their first marriage…

I find it distressing that so many people still read that garbage…the NYT. Put them out of business.

right2bright on February 12, 2007 at 9:50 AM

It’s the liberals’ gospel.

It is not ‘ad hominem’ to call people liars when they have repeatedly lied–and when their entire ‘industry’ is based on their repeated claims that they DO NOT lie, and that they are a source of consistent and accurate truth.

This point is crucial: Pointing out that the MSM routinely lie is significantly different from calling a plumber a lier. If a guy tells lies but fixes your pipes okay, him telling whoppers and making Stuff up is no big deal

If the people in the “News business” are systematically distorting and misrepresenting the “news”, that is…..important

Looking at the actual data, never married women under 25 accounted for 16.3 million of 30 million never marrieds, with the 25-29 group accounting for another 4.1 million. Married with spouse present accounted for 2 million women under 25 and 4.4 million women 25-29. After 25, each cohort had more married and living together than never married.

There were 13.5 million women who were divorced and 3.1 million who were separated.

Looking at the 15-24 female population, 175k were separated, 334k spouse absent (prime military, school, etc age), 30k widowed, and 180k divorced. So 86% of this population has never married, 10% are married, and the rest is spread across 4%.

For 25-29, never married is 43% and married is 45%. 30-34, never married is 24% and married is 59%.

So taking into account the dramatic increase in pursuit of higher education and the delay of onset of marriage, you see that marrying and living with a spouse is exceptionally common for women. Girls do not marry, and young women get married slowly.

This article looks like such utter tripe once you look at the data that it’s beyond embarrassing. I know that journalists assume that everyone is as innumerate as they are, but for crying out loud this is just atrocious. Take a few pieces of information about how our society actually works these days, combine them with slightly disaggregated data sets, and you see that this was just an atrocious agglomeration of lies.

The egregious misuse of data is emblematic of why blogs are taking over. Rather than relying on innumerate, self-righteous, officious, self-important blowhards who know little to nothign about the world, we get information from people with expertise, knowledge, and the ability to apply logic and math to problems. While science and engineering have fierce, bitter debates, one can figure out whom to believe by reading their arguments and assessing their data. When someone won’t share their data or denigrates the ability of outsiders to analyse the problem it is a massive red flag that there is something wrong.

When it comes to disinformation in the media, how is anyone surprised?

We expect them to lie subtly and blatantly – it’s their nature – after all, they have to generate controversy and garner profit for their corporate masters or they will be jobless.

Emmett J. on February 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM

This party-pooping sort of critique has been made and remade countless times. No one can reasonably be considered wise for pulling this lame critical technique out one more time; it’s just intellectual cut-and-paste.

Less ad hominem and more to the point, the particulars of this story are surprising, and I’m glad to have learned of it. Granting that we expect the NYT to make a$$e$ of themselves as a matter of routine, we’re made more wary–and we’re certainly entertained–by fresh examples showing the means they’re willing to use and how far they’re willing to go.

We expect them to lie subtly and blatantly – it’s their nature – after all, they have to generate controversy and garner profit for their corporate masters or they will be jobless.

I wonder why the Times even thought this was news worthy? What is their goal anyways?

New York Times – All the News That is Fit For us to Make up!

I am not married (by choice) and I plan to stay that way. I don’t care what anyone ESPECIALLY the NYSlimes has to say about it. Or what they have to say about marriage.

and how are you distinguishing this crap from the crap that you normally print? Or, is it all just crap

news flash ( as I have been saying all along ): it’s all just crap. Let me re-phrase that: The NYT and WaPo and al-Reuers and especially the A++hole Press have been deliberately lying to you and me for two generations now.

That’s why I’m HERE now, man; how about you?

In the wake of this controversy, Bill Keller, the executive editor, has decided to meet with staffers with expertise in statistics and demographics to create a “vetting network to help with the editing of articles dealing with those subjects,” Craig R. Whitney, an assistant managing editor and the standards editor, said Thursday.

It’s not like statistics were invented for this article…especially for such a ‘reputable’ establishment as the NYT…you’d think they had such a process by now…but, heh, Pinch Sulzberger doesn’t care if “we print in 5 years“.

Why? Because he’s not that caring of a guy…

My 80-year-old mother was widowed a year ago when my father died. They were married for 55 years. According to the Times, she’s living proof that marriage is on the decline.

Horse doo-doo.

… did the same thing with a similarly misleading and propagandistic article on October 15, 2006, which appeared under the headline: “It’s Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered.”

So it does look like Calame was slow on the uptake with his responsibilities or he is out to make all the last shots he can.

BTW, I will be happy to serve as a skeptical editor for the NYT.