Significant numbers…
PublicEye and CJR Daily take up the issue of the number 2,000, as in 2,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq–is this number significant? If so, why? And is it reportable news?
Humans assign significance to numbers. Popular targets of such assigning include 7, 12, 3.14159, and 1.61803. And we love to assign meaning to numbers that end in zero. How many of you have done this: Watched closely (and, perhaps, celebrated in some personal way) as your car passed 100,000 miles?
We also assign significance to the passing of seasons and years. And, if the passing of years corresponds with the occurrence of zero, well, we humans just go completely ga-ga. Remember the year 2,000? That was not the beginning of the new millennium. But we all treated it that way because of those zeroes.
You can’t have it both ways. We do assign meaning to numbers ending in zeroes. If you claim that such endings are arbitrary, then I don’t want to hear about your 50th wedding anniversary or your 40th birthday. Those numbers are just as arbitrary and just as meaningless.
In a sense, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan is absolutely correct. 2,000 is just a number–”an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups…” And, yes, to finish his quote, any individual or group has rhetorical purpose for assigning meaning–”specific agendas and ulterior motives.” Just as Boylan has a specific agenda, an ulterior motive, and a rhetorical purpose for asserting a lack of meaning.
It’s a good thing the press didn’t listen to him because we might not have had the opportunity to read this accurate headline from the New York Post: “2,000 Heroes”
We may certainly debate the notion that the motives of the press are nefarious. But one may just as easily point to so many other pseudo-news events that occur according to the press simply because a number has changed–many of them pleasing and maddening by turns to the various political factions.
Today is 27 October 2005. How long (hours? days?) before some military spokesman tries to sell the press a story based on the change of a number? And which wag among the assembled press corps will point out that it’s just an arbitrary number?
Unfortunately, for every “2000 Heroes” headline, there are 100 “Grim Milestone” headlines. Copy editor Callimachus says the AP was moving “Grim Milestone” stories, pictures and graphs last week. There is also a drinking game where you take a shot every time you see the Grim Milestone headline. I don’t advise playing unless you have nothing to do by noon that day! Calli has shots of all the “Grim Milestone” headlines on papers across the country. Ya gotta ask—-what liberal media? Heh http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2005/10/grim-milestone.html
Hi. I’m Earl Scheib, and I’ll paint any car any color for only $29.95.
the zen
of
sven….
R- Why the “grim” headlines outnumber the “hero” headlines is because death is, well, grim. The “hero” headline is appropriate, IMO. But that is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s simply another attitude. Few Americans, for are glad 2,000 are dead. That these soldiers are properly regarded as heroes makes it even more grim.
No duh, death is more grim than heroic and is neither liberal or conservative. Thanks for the 411.
But why are there more “grim” headlines than “heroic” headlines. I already know the answer, but I want to know your opinion.
I assume that the 2000 talley is total deaths and not combat deaths. Hey, even in peace time those in the military die from natural causes, accidents and suicides. Can’t wait for the SECOND 2000th death press orgy.
When considering the press, always ask, are they dumb or just dishonest?