Whoops.

If they are the worst, why do they keep correcting themselves? I think you are looking at this as though there is some balck ops agenda at work...

That's very misleading. It is true that the criteria for attacks had been recently revised and attacks like the ones within the Iraq war zone were not counted.

But this revision criteria was grandfathered and aplied to previous years.

Either way, there can be pro-administration spin.

Without the territorial attacks that had been exclusded the administration portrayed the stats as a consequence of their actions (which is misleading given that the statistical decline predates the administration).

By including attacks such as those in Iraq that are more a product of an invasion than terrorism the administration gets to portray the times as needing the actions the administration tends to favor (and subsequently a need for the administration itself).

I think the point is to be good enough to not have to make such corrections in the first place.

But maybe this is best for them (admin) in the long run. Very rarely do corrections get the press and attention that the original headline makes.

So if a bunch of people see the "we are wonderful" headline, hype it, spread the news, lock in that strong first impression, the "oops, we kind of f*cked it up" correction piece doesn't get nearly the same press or attention.

Oh well.

Yeah, the hope is that the admin would make sure about such things before going public with them as sucesses.

Gosh, I sure can't think of any other times the administration has gotten into trouble for reporting fiction as fact. Can you?

Cycloptichorn

from a quote by y6y6y6 I saw on metafilter, on this same subject:



Couldn't have said it better myself.

Cycloptichorn