Stats avoided by mainstream media

[epalmer84]

Statistics like these without the raw data to look at are meaningless. With those numbers, the article seems to make a bunch of baseless implications.

 

I would say that during my military career I am aware of perhaps two dozen deaths due to accident or illness, two to homicide and only three from combat.

 

Ed

[OldGreyEagle]

I beleive the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Agression is recognized as the bloodiest in American history. Accounts of causalties vary, but I beleive of all the deaths that occurred, only a third were from combat related action. The others died from dysentry, exposure, etc. Yet Lincoln is seen as the great uniter, a man of leadership, not one who threw sent men to their deaths,poorly equipped and all. Is it time that softens the man or the preconceived opinion?

[Bob White]

AS the story goes one American athlete and one Russian athlete ran a foot race to determine bragging rights as the best country.

 

After the race, which the American won, Fox News proclaimed "American Wins!". CNN's lead sory headline was, "Russian places Second...American finishes next to last"

 

It's no use fighting how the media reports, or doesn't report. News is not about facts. It is about marketing. The more segmented the media keeps the readers and viewers the more they can focus their target marketing and increase revenue. This is not new in media and has gone on for many decades.

 

[CalicoPenn]

I always shake my head when I hear the term "War of Northern Aggression".

 

The fact is that the Confederacy fired the first shots of the war when they attacked Fort Sumter with 50 cannons at 4:30am on April 12, 1861.

 

Wouldn't that mean that it was the Confederacy that was the aggressors and that it could be called the "War of Southern Aggression" and that the "North" (ie the "United States of America") entered into the war defending itself?

 

But like the writer of this article who hopes that people won't actually dig out the statistics he used to write his disingenuous article, the people who toss around such terms as "War of Northern Aggression" hope that people won't actually look at the facts which would bring down their smoke and mirrors.

 

Calico

 

(PS - OGE, I'm not saying you just toss out the term, or even necessarily believe it. Based on how you wrote it, I think you were just being nice enough to cover all the bases so please don't take this as being directed to you, or for that matter, any individual).

 

[Gold Winger]

Those damned Yankees were the agressors because they insisted on maintaining an armed presence in a soverign country against the wishes of that country.

[le Voyageur]

The article purpose seems to be to openly slam Jimmy Carter, and the stats in some areas are way off. As an example there are events that occured during the Reagan/Bush era that are little known being covered up. I suggest googling El Mozote as a start....