How then do we write and read stories to take this tendency into account ? I am regularly struck that journalists present information in a standardized format often lacking contextualization. A few years back CBC The National ran an exposé of sexual abuse by coaches in minor sports in Canada. If I recall correctly its analysis of legal proceedings filed involving such actions by coaches over a multi-year period showed some 300 cases. It then also noted, likely correctly, that experts expected that there were many more such incidents. Still, never did the report indicate how many coaches and other adults were involved across all those sports over that time period. The report seemed designed to have the audience conclude that the behaviour was and is rampant. Each case may be horrific and devastating to the individual and their family but, as a parent, it leaves me unable to determine what the real risk is to my child. The same seems to be the case with respect to the recent reporting on violence on public transit systems, primarily in Toronto. Each case has been extremely worrying but it was only after listening to the 6th or 7th report on the issue that a reporter noted there are over 2 million rides on the TTC every day.
The published version as I see it has a number of duplicated, out of order paras, a bunch of what look like unfleshed out prompts, a bunch of non-sequiturs, ends with a single word "crime", and so on.
I get that you want to be defensive about jerks who nitpick but this legitimately looks like a publishing error - maybe only visible to certain folks (I don't know anything about substack but is there a way to publish different versions to free vs. paid? I'm free if it helps to troubleshoot.)
I'm in the business of making it impossible to defraud public benefits programs, and the biggest headwind I face is people who think anyone getting the money is just as good as the right person getting the money.
I like such stories. As a pathologist I know all too well that we find more when we are primed, finding stuff that’s not there. It like starting off to find mushrooms in the woods: Searching, stumbling, no success - then finally you find one - then the woods start to unravel. Aren’t there also stories about imitation suicides that are triggered by reports? Unlike fenestrations and suicides in RU right now.
Looks like you published a draft, my man.
How then do we write and read stories to take this tendency into account ? I am regularly struck that journalists present information in a standardized format often lacking contextualization. A few years back CBC The National ran an exposé of sexual abuse by coaches in minor sports in Canada. If I recall correctly its analysis of legal proceedings filed involving such actions by coaches over a multi-year period showed some 300 cases. It then also noted, likely correctly, that experts expected that there were many more such incidents. Still, never did the report indicate how many coaches and other adults were involved across all those sports over that time period. The report seemed designed to have the audience conclude that the behaviour was and is rampant. Each case may be horrific and devastating to the individual and their family but, as a parent, it leaves me unable to determine what the real risk is to my child. The same seems to be the case with respect to the recent reporting on violence on public transit systems, primarily in Toronto. Each case has been extremely worrying but it was only after listening to the 6th or 7th report on the issue that a reporter noted there are over 2 million rides on the TTC every day.
No, not typos.
The published version as I see it has a number of duplicated, out of order paras, a bunch of what look like unfleshed out prompts, a bunch of non-sequiturs, ends with a single word "crime", and so on.
I get that you want to be defensive about jerks who nitpick but this legitimately looks like a publishing error - maybe only visible to certain folks (I don't know anything about substack but is there a way to publish different versions to free vs. paid? I'm free if it helps to troubleshoot.)
I'm in the business of making it impossible to defraud public benefits programs, and the biggest headwind I face is people who think anyone getting the money is just as good as the right person getting the money.
just found more snow
I like such stories. As a pathologist I know all too well that we find more when we are primed, finding stuff that’s not there. It like starting off to find mushrooms in the woods: Searching, stumbling, no success - then finally you find one - then the woods start to unravel. Aren’t there also stories about imitation suicides that are triggered by reports? Unlike fenestrations and suicides in RU right now.
It’s reading fine to me, and I’m a sometime copy editor. Trust this is confirmation an earlier issue has been dealt with.
And btw, great article!