Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 14
An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."
February 24, 2006
The Baltimore Sun now reports on the release of the report from the City's health and fire departments (Reported by Doug Donovan and Julie Bycowicz). The Sun, as usual, includes a rehash of the political side of the story. Also, an interesting aside on the numbers. The article (as well as WBAL) reports that the two hospitals reported a 37% decline in the gunshot-related ER visits. That's not accurate. The City's report says that the hospitals report a decline of 32.2% in all gunshot-related visits from 1999 to 2005 and a decline of 37.4% for those visits for Baltimore City residents. It seems that the proper number should be the number of ALL gunshot-related visits. It's unlikely that the non-Baltimore City residents would get shot outside the city and then come to a City hospital. Strange reporting?! I wonder if the O'Malley administration fed them the 37% number to mislead them.
Also, why did the Health Department used only data from two hospitals. The WBAL TV report of the gunshot wound that went unreported despite 911 calls from passing motorists and Harbor Hospital ER staff occurred at Harbor Hospital and not Johns Hopkins and Shock Trauma. I wonder what the numbers would look like if the City and gotten all the data.
On the political side, the Sun article ends with City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. comments that the "shooting statistics were 'too narrow' and not 'indicative of all violent crime.' He said he planned to go forward with introducing a resolution on Monday calling for an independent audit by academics from four area universities."
On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?" Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."
February 24, 2006
The Baltimore Sun now reports on the release of the report from the City's health and fire departments (Reported by Doug Donovan and Julie Bycowicz). The Sun, as usual, includes a rehash of the political side of the story. Also, an interesting aside on the numbers. The article (as well as WBAL) reports that the two hospitals reported a 37% decline in the gunshot-related ER visits. That's not accurate. The City's report says that the hospitals report a decline of 32.2% in all gunshot-related visits from 1999 to 2005 and a decline of 37.4% for those visits for Baltimore City residents. It seems that the proper number should be the number of ALL gunshot-related visits. It's unlikely that the non-Baltimore City residents would get shot outside the city and then come to a City hospital. Strange reporting?! I wonder if the O'Malley administration fed them the 37% number to mislead them.
Also, why did the Health Department used only data from two hospitals. The WBAL TV report of the gunshot wound that went unreported despite 911 calls from passing motorists and Harbor Hospital ER staff occurred at Harbor Hospital and not Johns Hopkins and Shock Trauma. I wonder what the numbers would look like if the City and gotten all the data.
On the political side, the Sun article ends with City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. comments that the "shooting statistics were 'too narrow' and not 'indicative of all violent crime.' He said he planned to go forward with introducing a resolution on Monday calling for an independent audit by academics from four area universities."
posted by InsiderOut at 6:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home