"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Monday, October 10, 2005

Demographics 1 for Journalists

I have noted in the past that modern-day journalists---predominantly English or Political Science majors who failed to get into law school---are ignorant, stupid, lazy, dishonest, biased, and arrogant.

I was too kind. Take a look at today's LA Times, which "reports" that drug overdoses increasingly are concentrated among people in their 40s; in 1985, the dominant age was 32. And so the geniuses at the LAT seem to conclude that drug use increasingly will be a phenomenon of the middle-aged, and that new programs are needed to deal with this new trend.

Oh, dear. Has it occurred to our crack reporters that there is a cohort---the ineffable boomers---that for whatever reason is more prone to drug use, and that drug use becomes increasingly concentrated in that aging cohort as time moves on? Or does the Times actually believe that this "trend" indicates that those now in their twenties increasingly will turn to drug use over the next two decades?

It's really quite unbelievable. Is so elementary an analytic dimension of basic demographics beyond the understanding of our modern journalists? Or are they the ones on drugs?


Kathy Hutchins said...

I heard this story reported on the local ABC radio station, and the spin they put on it was precisely the correct one -- all those hippie dippy baby boomers are still doing drugs. They even made a joke about whether Medicare would have to pay for addiction treatment when the Summer of Love becomes the Winter of Co-dependency. I didn't realize that the LA Times reporters missed this rather obvious angle in their own story.

James Elliott said...

Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed and is awfully cranky today. Who needs a hug?