'Fox and Friends' Reports on 'Times' Veterans' Smear

Photo of Justin McCarthy.
By Justin McCarthy | January 16, 2008 - 14:20 ET

"The New York Times" uses fuzzy math to smear volunteer soldiers and "Fox and Friends" picked it up. MRC’s Clay Waters reported on the "Sunday Times" January 13 story, "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles," essentially smearing soldiers linking some committed murders to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.

However, the numbers show that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are far less likely to commit murder. On the January 16 edition of "Fox and Friends," co-host Steve Doocy noted that veterans are "five times less likely to commit murder." Gretchen Carlson noted the danger of putting out these dubious stories adding "You don't have time to actually get to the bottom of all of these articles. People just assume that what they read, wrong or right, is truth."

The entire transcript is below.

 

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Somebody else who needs to clear up something a little bit is "The New York Times." Surprise, surprise, they distorted some numbers on Sunday. There was a big article with regard to how many veterans coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, 700,000 of them by the way, how many people that they have actually killed since they've been back.

STEVE DOOCY: Murdered.

CARLSON: Murdered and they said there were 121 killings, quote, "a cross country trail of death and heartbreak." Well, it turns out that they didn't necessarily do their math.

DOOCY: Well, the way "The New York Times" wrote it, and it was right there on the Sunday paper, which is the big one that people across the country read. It made it sound like as soon as the men and women in the military service return from Iraq and Afghanistan, they go on a killing spree. But "The New York Times" used, that's exactly what it sounded like. But "The New York Times" used kind of a fuzzy kind of logic. And what they did was, if you look at, 350,000 men and women have served over there so far, at least during the Global War on Terror. Now the Department of Justice says that if you looked at another 350,000 Americans who stayed at home and did not go to military service, that same number of people, they probably would have committed 750 murders. So you compare that, 750 to 121- And then when you look at all of the people that have gone there, turns out-

BRIAN KILMEADE: And how many years has this been going on?

DOOCY: Yeah, exactly, turns out you are five times less likely to commit murder, if you served in the military.

KILMEADE: So if you have a kid between 18 and 34 and you want to make sure that kid is not a victim of or perpetrator of violence, your best bet, looking at this with a sober view, without a negative view. Looking at this, just looking at the raw numbers, the best thing you can do is send your kid to the military.

CARLSON: Which is exactly the opposite of-

KILMEADE: They create less violent people!

CARLSON: I just find this amazing because what person who's reading "The Sunday Times," when you got probably three kids running around your house and you're trying to get to church potentially-

DOOCY: Wait a minute you're telling me your story, three kids running around the house.

CARLSON: Well, I thought I had two, well my husband, okay two kids. But you know what I'm saying? You don't have time to actually get to the bottom of all of these articles. People just assume that what they read, wrong or right, is truth.

KILMEADE: Yeah, soldiers become killers, keep reading and hopefully we've exposed the truth.

(Also see NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston)

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leftist Times Strikes at our own warriers again

NYT has always supported the other side...they miss the Soviets so much, I'm sure the collapse of the USSR is also Bush's fault.

I have to say "bravo" to Fox N Friends for standing up for us.  As a soldier myself for many years I want to say that military standards prevent idiots from serving and if they get in they either change or don't last.  By the time we got out we were more disciplined than the lefties who floated around campus for five years to graduate and go into journalism.  I bet their shoes even need some kiwi....

Why is it liberals can comment on everything

I was wondering why is it liberal New York Times, Olberman ect... always can commment as experts on everything, but on issues like sodomy, aborticide, being a woman, being black.......yack yack yack, that liberals always tell Conservatives they can not be an expert unless they have lived it.

So I would like President Bush to sign an executive order drafting all "reporters" who have commented on Iraq, Afhganistan and terrorism into a special battalion, could call it the:

Lesbian, aborters, queericide, gun control, NAALCP, UCLA reporter regiment. Let them serve a tour of duty in the Pushtan for 18 months and when they come back they can write whatever they choose from experience..........if they survive.

 

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

I saw the segment this

I saw the segment this morning. Good for Fox and Friends. Unfortunately, Kilmeade over-reached by stating that you should send your kid to the military to make him less violent. Since the military has relatively high standards for entry, it may simply mean that the recruitment process does a good job of screening out likely murderers.

What the military does

is make you grow up. The very first thing the military does is send someone to boot camp to take a kid and turn them into an adult. If they are full of piss and vinegar (or themselves) they yank all the slack out of them and teach them discipline, attention to details, and respect for authority and the country and its laws. By the end of boot camp they havc effectively realigned their priorities and made them to think, eat, sleep team work and unit cohesion. It's drilled into them from day one to the last day and will carry through the rest of the time they are in the military. If someone can not or will not adapt they can and will toss them out because frankly we don't have the time to babysit or try to correct all the mistakes Mom and Dad made when they raised their little darlin. We now have the luxury being selective and taking only the best of the best anymore unlike 30 yrs ago when you had draftees serving along side volunteers. We have a very professional military. Sure some screw ups manage to slip through but generally they are found out long before they first enlistment is up and are not allowed to remain for further service.

The number of "murders" in

The number of "murders" in my "town" here in NEOhio was pushing somewhere around 40 (may have passed that) ... as we closed out 2007 ...

Oh, and I DO NOT recall any of the suspects/perps having been A-stan/Iraq veterans ...

If they were vets, I'll bet

If they were vets, I'll bet it would have been stated in the first sentence. 

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.

Fox is so unfare..........kidding

Now I see why the lame libs refuse to go there....they have a great BS meter.....

The liberals are defending

The liberals are defending this as it was just an attempt by the NY Times to get proper help for returning soldiers.

Sounds like they're trying

Sounds like they're trying to sell a non-existent bridge to nowhere, eh?

CARLSON: Murdered and they

CARLSON: Murdered and they said there were 121 killings, quote, "a cross country trail of death and heartbreak." (emphasis mine)

It's all in the way it's explained. 121 murders by veterans sounds like a lot, until you compare it to the total number of murders.

Mark Twain was right: there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. And the media are experts at using statistics to paint the picture they want.

How things are worded makes a difference. If a certain cancer has an 80% chance of survival, you'd consider those odds pretty good, right? Well, you wouldn't if you heard (as I did some time ago) a report that said that particular cancer was so severe that one out of five people who contracted it would die. It's like when they say something doubles your risk of getting a certain disease, but they don't tell you it doubles it from 2% to 4%.

As they say "perception is reality." So the NYT gets the idea out there that veterans are just a bunch of ticking time bombs. If the idea gets refuted a few days later, oh, well. The original thought is still out there and a lot of people never get "the rest of the story."

Shameful.

Exactly, mb!

Exactly, mb!

Related Sacramento Bee Article

My home-town paper, The Sacramento Bee, had a front page article today titled, "Gun death toll soars for the young, subtitle: Many county cases involve youths killing youths; gangs drugs play role."  The gist of the article was that overall homicides were down in Sacramento County for '07, but that a larger percentage of the homicides were comitted by 21 and under using guns, most of that related to gangs and drugs.  There was no mention in the article that returned vets were responsible for any of the homicides.  FYI there were 95 total homicides in Sacramento County in '07 down from 118 in '06.  According to the article another interesting fact is that "The Sacramento Police seized 899 guns in 2007 and sheriff's deputies took in 1,298 guns, officials said."

Interesting.  This could

Interesting.  This could prove to be a great research problem.

Who has a higher incidence of murder when normalized for age and sex.  Returning US combat veterans or .....

  •  The children of New York Times employees nationwide.
  •  The children of Democratic Politicians Nationwide.
  • The children of the press in general nationwide.

Somebody would get an instant PHD Thesis out of this one.

I guess that's what they mean by "Fair and Balanced."

Fox is all wrong here: "you looked at another 350,000 Americans who
stayed at home and did not go to military service, that same number of people, they probably would
have committed 750 murders."

That's 1 in every 467 will kill someone every four years. My high school class would have 10 murders by now (I'm 58).

It was an outlandish

It was an outlandish response to an even MORE OUTLANDISH story presneted by the New York Times regarding a supposed high murder rate amongst returning veterans.

When presented with the actual facts, the folllowing comes out:  (Thanks to my old superior, LTC Ralph Peters.)

Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.  Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform.

To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.

In the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, the murder rate for the 18-34 group was about 14 times higher than the rate of murders allegedly committed by returning vets.

In other words, those of your classmates who joined the military are less likely to murder than the class as a whole.  Unless you are from DC in which case - How are you still alive?