12/21/24
October 14, 2003
John Lott, a controversial scholar known for his gun research and creating fictitious people to compliment his own work, has published research on whether the media wants black quarterbacks to do well.
aren't we sick of this yet?
posted by danostuporstar at 10:46 AM on October 14, 2003
Looking at just the averages, without trying to account for anything else, reveals a ten-percent difference in coverage (with 67 percent of stories on blacks being positive, 61 percent for whites). I see their math skills match up with their logic skills. I wonder how many of those articles focused on Steve McNair, who has been tearing it up all year? And how many focused on Rich Gannon, who has sucked? One awesome black QB and one really crappy white one could skew everthing. There are just too many damn factors at work here to do a flat researching of the papers.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:01 AM on October 14, 2003
There is an old saying in the computer business that applies to hacks like this moron as well: Garbage in, garbage out.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:07 AM on October 14, 2003
John Lott isn't doing himself any favors peddling this sort of crap. This doesn't even classify as junk science in my book. Positive and negative phrases that appear within 50 words of a quarterback's name? Please. wfrazejr: the math is correct the 10% points is not determined by subtracting 61 from 67 but by taking the percentage difference - i.e. 10% of 61%. All this 'study' might reveal is that some writers occasionally identify black QB's as such. Which, of course, is clearly a case of media bias favoring of black QB's. Great find rcade.
posted by kloeprich at 11:20 AM on October 14, 2003
Ahhh ... shows what I know about statistics. If it ain't got a batting average tied to it, I don't know it. I agree about the post, though ... thanks, rcade.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:06 PM on October 14, 2003
yes rcade, you have been on a solid hot streak for FPPs.....tks.
posted by smithers at 12:51 PM on October 14, 2003
Another take on the Lott "analysis".
posted by pitchblende at 01:00 PM on October 14, 2003
I want to hear what Hal has to say about the mathematical virtues of this research.
posted by garfield at 01:24 PM on October 14, 2003
I just don't think that a study on a subjective value judgment (whether your good or not) can be made evident through empirical data. Plus little factors like geography, access, sports market and the like would skew this stuff. Did remember reading one kind of glaring stat a while back - African Americans comprise about 14% of the population of the US - yet news broadcasts feature them over 40% of the time. But that wouldn't affect people's perception. No way.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:18 PM on October 14, 2003
I wanted to write someting snappy about John Lott's problems and painkilling opiates, but nah, forget about it.
posted by GoDizzGo at 03:39 AM on October 16, 2003
This has become a silly topic, as Weedy's post shows.
posted by cg1001a at 12:36 PM on October 16, 2003
great post! you know what they say, 'right minds stink alike.'