I Agree

Sometimes someone says something so stupid (how's that for alliteration?) that it also illustrates a bigger issue.

The segment shows an experienced TV broadcaster Brian Williams and a member of the New York Times Editorial Board expressing their horror that Michael Bloomberg spent more than $1 million per every American during his aborted presidential campaign.  As anyone remotely familiar with math can immediately tell, that figure can't be right.  In fact, Bloomberg spent $1.53 per American

This is the stupidest thing that has ever aired on television. Congratulations to all involved. pic.twitter.com/vARi9yQ0Bv

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 6, 2020

For more than 40 years I was a regular reader (and often a subscriber) to the New York Times before ceasing to be a regular reader around 2005.  As I grew more and more frustrated with its reporting I tried to focus on other aspects of the paper to keep me entertained and reading.  For instance, comparing adverbs and adjectives used in articles to describe Democrats versus Republicans/conservatives.

The technique I used most regarded the evident innumeracy of Times reporters and editorial writers. Both then and now, the Times runs many stories that are essentially prettified versions of Progressive advocacy group press releases because it's easy, fits with the preconceptions of Times reporters and editors, and provides comfort food for its readers.  The stories were usually filled with figures and statistics to "prove" their case.  I used to enjoy reading through those stories to identify the places where the numbers or statistics failed to back up, or even contradicted, the case being made in the written narrative.  It was easy pickings.  Times reporters seemed to have no concepts of statistical significance, margins of error, percentages, or the various tricks advocacy groups can play with numbers.  In Progressive parlance, the Times failed to "interrogate" the information.

It points out the difference (and not just restricted to the Times or the Left) between those of us who believe numbers and statistics have a value of their own and need to be objectively assessed versus those who see them as just something to adorn an argument or article with and have no distinct value of their own.

In the case above the tweet that caused the excitement fit neatly into their worldview and they are clearly uncomfortable with basic math so they rolled with it.  And these are the folks who want to instruct us on how to live every part of our lives.

And no wonder Democrats think billionaires can pay for everything!