Lies, damn lies, and headlines
Two different takes on the same statistics and story.
Chicago Tribune:
New record: Americans give $300 billion to charity
Annual contributions rise in correlation with the stock market.
link
New York Times:
Absence of Major Disaster in ’06 Affected Giving
link
A couple more quotes from the Tribune:
Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.
"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of "The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism." Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.
Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.
Wonder why the Times is in such a funk. I certainly would expect better reporting from a paper thinking it is the best in the country. . .
posted by Marc @ 6:39 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Stephanie Strom here, author of the Times story you didn't like. Here are my thoughts on what I did.
Given that charitable giving hits a new annual record with a fair amount of regularity — like, every year since it has been tracked, with the exception of a year or two following the collapse of the tech bubble -- I hardly consider the latest record news. The fact is that charitable giving last year rose a scant 1 percent when adjusted for inflation, and that ain’t much. Yes, one can make adjustments to account for disaster-related giving in the prior year, but I’d like to think that the nonprofit sector — and the media that covers it — is above the kind of games that Corporate America and Wall Street play to make numbers look better than they are. Giving USA’s own researcher was quoted in the Times story saying he was surprised charitable giving wasn’t stronger last year.
Stephanie Strom,
I am pleased that you responded and I appreciate the points that you made. Let me respond with a few thoughts:
1) You start with a "given" (charitable giving hits a new annual record with a fair amount of regularity), but your article does not say that. I know, because I read your headline and first couple of sentences and then later read the Tribune and thought wow, giving was actually up. . . You may have had that given in your mind, but your article does not convey it.
2. Giving rose 1 percent. You may think it is "not much", but the Tribune makes it clear it is within reasonable expectations.
3. It is not your call. It is not your job to decide "it ain't much." That is either for an editorial or the reader to decide. After reading both the Times and Tribune, I do not feel like the Times presented the facts in a sufficient manner.
4. I feel the Tribune does a much better job in putting the numbers in context, especially the comments by Professor Gaudiani.
5. I would be careful of talking about playing "games" or being above it. . . My first reaction that I stand by, is that you were doing the same; except you were making them look worse then they are.
6. You refer to the Rooney quote. I am honestly troubled about your point given this part of the quote: “I think what we’re seeing is philanthropy growing in a steadier, more linear way, when everyone has been hoping for a pattern more like the roaring 1990s.” You are upset giving growth "ain't much," but it is "steadier"; it is not erratic or going down. You dismiss this as not news. The fact is, your reporting reeks of disappointment that the hopes were not met. . .
As I said, I am pleased that Stephanie Strom responded. I do understand her thinking better. I am not yet willing to change my assessment, but I do encourage everyone to look at the facts and draw their own conclusions.
(footnote: this is probably my last response due to time, although I invite all to comment here and I will post them).
Post a Comment
<< Home