On balance, I like NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, even when I disagree with him. Indeed, on several levels, he and I have similar views of what the appropriate prescriptions are for the problems of global development.
However, as someone who takes political analysis quite seriously, I tire of his “methodology” of dining with people on his travels and then using it as a means of making an argument.
As is often noted (although clearly not enough): anecdotes ain’t evidence. This is something I wish journalists in general would be taught in J School–and if they are being taught such there is some serious widespread amnesia going on.
OTB has an appropriate re-Joyner to this oft-employed tool of Friedman’s.
Anecdotes aren’t evidence, but for journalists, they are the meal ticket to a good lead.
Look at almost any story about a major national issue. What’s the first thing you see? An anecdote. The 80-year-old woman who has to decide between her medicine and her food. The “welfare cheat” who collects a check from the government while perfectly capable of working. The farmer who’s having to sell his farm to a big co-op because of government policies. Etc, etc.
To be honest, I think the deficiency is in the ability of journalists to really get the “bigger picture” behind the anecdotes. They (we) are frequently innumerate, and thus incapable of telling a compelling story with numbers, or even drawing proper inferences from the latest batch of spin statistics we get from the politicians.
Or there are darker motives I don’t want to consider.
OTOH, politicians are famous for using the anecdote to no good end. Consider Reagan’s famous welfare queen example, or the recent presidential campaign.
Comment by bryan — Thursday, January 27, 2024 @ 12:31 pm