It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY Times is wrong again! Majority of women are married.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
There was big news last week about how for the first time a majority a women are now not married. Well it seems like the NY Times, in order to defame marriage, counted 15 year olds, among other things.


www.lifesite.net...


New York Times Gets Another Story Very Wrong - This Time it’s about Marriage
Accused of “journalistic malpractice” for skewing stats to incorrectly show most women not marrying

By Peter J. Smith


NEW YORK, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The New York Times has once again published another 'hit piece' on the institution of marriage, alleging that for “the first time more American women are living without a husband than with one”. However, US census data for 2005 shows that the January 16th front-page story in the New York Times is just another disturbing showcase of the Times’ tolerance for “journalistic malpractice”.




According to the 2005 report “Marital Status of the Population by Sex and Age”, the United States is not yet a culture that has discarded the institution of marriage, where 60.4% of men and 56.9% of women over 18 years old are married.

However, Roberts creates his own analysis by using the Census Bureau’s “Living Arrangements of Persons 15 Years Old and Over by Selected Characteristics”, by including in his 51% figure of women living without a spouse: unmarried teenage and college girls still living with their parents, women whose husbands work out of town, are institutionalized, or are separated from husbands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Sheesh, not only did they count 15 year olds, but counting our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as not married?

World Net Daily is looking better and better for a source of information!

The NY Times, which is a liberal rag, will not get called out for this. Yet, they wonder why circulation is down?

Report the News! Don't make it up!




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Maybe they learned it from our administration. How many lies have they been caught in?

AAC



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Maybe they learned it from our administration. How many lies have they been caught in?

AAC


I am not familiar with any lies within the Bush administration. I am familiar with the NY Times claiming the Bush administration lied. But then again...look at the source.

I know you are upset that I am attacking a liberal institution, like the NY Times, but the Bush-Bashing is getting old.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Maybe they learned it from our administration. How many lies have they been caught in?

AAC


I am not familiar with any lies within the Bush administration. I am familiar with the NY Times claiming the Bush administration lied. But then again...look at the source.

I know you are upset that I am attacking a liberal institution, like the NY Times, but the Bush-Bashing is getting old.


I agree, Bush bashing is old. There is nothing anyone can do about it so they might as well keep the negative thought inside (that is until he refuses to leave office).


Ameria has lost all credibility around the world.
There is a constant sense of anxious fear about terror.
250,000,000 dollars A DAY in Iraq & Afghanistan.
False pretences for war.
Majority of Americans disapprove of war.
What happened to our country?

I'll remind you of Kennedy's words and then you tell me how far we are from this:

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself." J.F Kennedy

"He whp sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." B. Franklin

It is obvious to me that we used to be more sincere, would you disagree?

AAC





AAC



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
WHAT!!??!! The New York Times lie!!??!!??

Noooooooooo

Never!




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Does anyone have a subscription to the NY Times?, I can't seem to find the article in question.

If the article mentions 15 year olds, and all the parameters considered, then the NY Times is fine.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
No we need to keep bashing like we bashed all the other presidents. Its called free speech. But more women are not getting married it might not be the majority of the nation but its true that more women are staying unmarried.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I hate to burst you bubble, unless you don't trust the census bureau to do statistics, but here is confirmation.

Census


Earlier this month, the Census Bureau informed us that married households are no longer the majority in America. Homes headed by married couples have dipped below 50% for the first time. But while this barometer certainly indicates a sea change in how we live, the nature of the phenomenon is generally misunderstood.


AAC

[edit on 23-1-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Does anyone have a subscription to the NY Times?, I can't seem to find the article in question.


NYTimes article



THE news that 51 percent of all women live without a spouse might be enough to make you invest in cat futures.


It doesn't say they're not married.



Among women ages 25-34, 59 percent of college graduates are married, compared with 51 percent of non-college graduates, according to an analysis of the Census Bureau’s June 2006 Current Population Survey by Steven P. Martin, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. The same is true at older age groups: the difference is 75 percent to 62 percent for those ages 35-44, and 50 percent to 41 percent among those 65 and older.


They're clearly NOT making a claim that the majority of women aren't married.



51.5 percent of women are [married]


If you take the time to read the NYTimes piece (which obviously the OP nor their conservative source did) you can see that the NYTimes said no such thing. It does take a few minutes and a bit of discerning intelligence to read and understand what the articel is saying, but if you're looking simply to bash the NYTimes, I'm sure you'll find a way.



[edit on 23-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
When someone states "Women living without a spouse." I assumed they where talking about unmarried women. Every news report I heard assumed the same thing.

It still was manipulative journalism, and the way other news sources bow down to the NY Times, I can see how it was misinterpreted. Pretty low for them to include 15 years old though.

Kind of Clintonian, if you ask me.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by RRconservative]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
When someone states "Women living without a spouse." I assumed they where talking about unmarried women.


But did you read the rest of the article where they quoted the percentages of married women by age? ALL of them were over 50%. If you don't read and comprehend, it's hardly fair to blame the NYTimes for that. It's also unfair to blame them for your assumptions.



Pretty low for them to include 15 years old though.

Kind of Clintonian, if you ask me.


WTF does that even mean? What does Clinton have to do with this?

Oh, ok, I forgot to whom I was talking there for a moment.


I don't see any indication (except for your original source, who was mistaken about the NYTimes article in the first place) that the NYTimes used 15-year-olds in their stats. Am I to trust your source on this when they don't even have the original premise right?

Instead of the NYTimes being so eager to "defame marriage" it looks like your source is a little too eager to defame the NYTimes.


[edit on 23-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Why Are There So Many Single Americans?

THE news that 51 percent of all women live without a spouse might be enough to make you invest in cat futures.

[...]According to the census, 55 percent of men are married, down from 69.3 percent in 1960, and 51.5 percent of women are



This article seems to be written to give the impression that marriage is less common and popular than it actually is. This seems to be most strongly evidenced by the author having to use a bizzare and unusual 'cohort' for their statistic: 'women who live without a spouse'. They seem to have chosen that unatural cohort, and put it in the first line of the article (knowing full well that most people only read the headline and first paragraph of an article), in order to give you the impression that marriage is dead.

However, if you read the full article, you'd probably be confused about what they are talking about, rather than mislead. It clearly makes good statements about the state of marriage, such as:

All this leads to a happiness gap, too. According to the Marriage Project, the percentage of spouses who rate their marriage as “very happy” has dropped among those without a college education, while it has risen or held steady among those better educated.

etc.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
the language may be a bit skewed and merky, but this doesn't seem to be an overt lie

it's more like someone is trying to make it look like a lie...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join