The New York Times' Bias is Turning Vicious

On Jan 13, 2008, the New York Times email edition said:

The Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.

Before we go into what's wrong with the story, we must make it clear that we abhor the murders that seem to have been committed by veterans of the Iraq war as we abhor the deaths of our soldiers serving there.  There can be no objection to being concerned with the damage that some of our veterans may have incurred.

What's wrong with the Times' approach is that they seem to imply that there would have been no murders by these young people if they hadn't been to Iraq.

We see similar "spin" in the Times' reports of combat deaths in Iraq.  Whenever they report a death in Iraq, they imply that nobody who's serving in Iraq would have died if they hadn't been in Iraq.

Accident statistics show that the death rate due to drunk driving and other accidents would be expected to kill more of our men and women if they were at home than have been killed by the enemy.  In other words, being at war in Iraq is safer for our military personnel than being at home would be.  This was true during the first Gulf war; it's true now.

This table gives the number of deaths among active-duty members of the US military for the recent past.  The absolute number of deaths isn't the best figure for comparison because the number of people in the military fluctuated.  For each year, the number of deaths is converted to the percentage of all active-duty personnel who died in each year.

Bush-bashers hate to admit it, but a smaller percentage of active-duty military personnel died during both Bush administrations than during the Reagan and Carter administrations.

This is a simple fact which any Times researcher could find out, but sticking to the facts wouldn't let them imply that President Bush is to blame for all our soldier's deaths.  The facts about the number of our people who would be expected to die back in the US are evidently not "fit to print" as far as the Times is concerned.

Similarly, the Times' story about murders by Iraqi vets implies that they would not have committed murder if they hadn't been stressed out in Iraq.  Unfortunately for the Times, the murder rate by 18-25-year-olds is rather high.  Some of these men and women would be expected to commit murder whether they'd been in Iraq or not.

This table is taken from the US Department of Justice:

The Times implies that the only reason for an Iraq vet to murder anyone is combat stress from being in Iraq.  Averaging the government data for 1002-2005 shows, however, that of every 100,000 people aged 18-24, 26.74 of them committed murder each year.  Of 100,000 people aged 25-34, 12.75 can be expected to commit murder each year.

Soldiering is a young person's affair; our military people in Iraq are of the prime age for committing murder back in the US.  Assuming that half our combat troops fall into the 18-24 group and the other half in the 25-34 group, we can expect 19.7 murders per 100,000 military people.

Thus, the 1,378,014 active duty military in 2005 could be expected to commit 270 murders or so per year regardless of having been in Iraq.  If the Times is correct about Iraq veterans committing 121 murders, the numbers are far lower than we'd expect.

Not only that, some of the incidents the Times describes as "murder" might have been legitimate acts of self-defense.  For the Times to imply that Iraq veterans commit murder only because they've been in Iraq is irresponsible journalism.  It appears, however, that any criticism of President Bush is fit to print whether it's true or not.

This is a self-correcting problem -- the Times is losing market share as readers discover their bias.  But so long as they're in business, they're doing the truth a serious disservice.