Just when you thought the BBC couldn’t reinterpret its charter responsibility to remain “impartial” any more creatively, its website today, in reference to this morning’s tragic Ohio shooting, highlights a piece entitled, “US crime figures: Why the drop?” The article starts by posing a question:
For 20 years, crime in the US has been falling and new figures from the FBI show a sharp drop in the last two years, despite the recession. Why? Through Democratic and Republican administrations and through booms and busts, crime has been falling since 1991.
The author then quickly acknowledges that “no-one agrees on the reasons for this” and offers “10 possible theories” for the trend. And, would you believe it, although the question posed noted that crime has been falling since 1991 — through all sorts of economic times and under presidents and congressional majorities of both party — Barack Obama is the first reason offered for the drop!
1. The Obama effect could explain the increased pace of the reduction of the last few years, says one of the country’s top criminologists, Alfred Blumstein. “The prior expectation was that the recession would have the opposite effect. The question then is what distinctive event occurred in ‘09?” The election of a black president could have inspired some young black men, who are disproportionately involved in arrests for robbery and homicide, says the professor. It’s very speculative, he adds, and probably only one factor of many, as one of the cities with a huge drop in crime is Phoenix, in Arizona, which does not have a large black population. “In the field of criminology, you don’t get consistent indicators as you would in physics. There are so many factors that could have contributed.” A separate study on school test scores supports the view that some black teenagers were motivated to try harder by the new presidency.
Even if one were to consider the “Obama effect” to be a credible theory, given that it would explain only three years worth of a 21 year trend — whereas the other nine on the list were all long-term hypotheses — one would still surely conclude that it should have been included as a throwaway last item. Only the BBC could seriously privilege Obama’s presence above smarter policing, reduced demand for crack, advancing technology, or structural economic change. But then, as I’m fond of noting, the BBC’s biased coverage of American politics is legendary.
The rest here.
You didn't include a link to the original article, but I'm curious if any attention was given to increased private firearms ownership? It's one of the most consistent indicators mapping to crime rate. Couple that with the fact that gun purchases skyrocketed in 2009 when everyone was afraid the Obama administration was going to pursue strict gun control, and it matches up even better.
It might be an "Obama Effect," just not the Obama effect the BBC claims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBingo! It was THAT Obama effect!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe recent decline may have something to do with Obama, in a round about way. The massive increase in those carrying and owning firearms in the United States could be a more direct cause, itself possibly caused by Obama's election: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse+1
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe BBC could do an 11 second spot on door knobs and you'd walk away convinced it was all your fault.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, how could you possibly get 'doorknob' out of an article about Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey are not wrong to credit Obama. Thanks to Obama's promise to take us to (over?) the edge of economic collapse, many self-reliant Americans took it upon themselves to arm themselves to protect themselves and their homesteads.
Potential attackers now need to think twice before victimizing their fellow citizens. News reports contain tales of successful self-defense measures that I do not recall seeing, in such volume, in my life. Oh, and exactly the opposite in gun-free zones.
It's the "you're on your own society," just like BHO said!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseoh.... the bad old liberal biased media argument again and again and again here at the Corner. Please the article listed 10 possible "theories" of why why crime has dropped. Did the article suggest that they were listed in order of most probable? Why is it relevant that the one mentioning Obama was listed first? Perhaps it was listed first because it would be of most interest to the reader and not because it was the one favored by the BBC.
You guys are pathetic in your hatred for the President of the United States of American, that just the mere mention of his name and something positive conditions you all into your Pavolovian screaming of media bias. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think pathetic would be someone making not just one but two comments complaining about complaints of media bias that contain nothing beyond the most favorable speculation possible for the BBC to not come across as weasels with a left-wing bias.
In other words, you're happy to carry water for the BBC but offer none of the same benefit of a doubt to the author of the post, such as even deigning to acknowledge the possibility that his suggestion has merit.
This only serves to reveal your own biases and to confirm those of the Beeb. In the case of Auntie's though, this post is just another brick in a wall of evidence demonstrating a left-wing bias.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn general, people put lists together either alphabetically, or in order of probability.
(Barack does start with a 'B', so alphabetical can't be ruled out.)
Beyond that, the explanation given is so ludicrous, that anyone putting it forward deserves all the ridicule he gets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour headline, "BBC: Barack Obama Is the Number One Reason for U.S. Crime Reduction" is completely misleading. Where is the article did it say that Obama is the number one reason for US Crime Reduction. The article that I read said that there are many "theories" or why crime has gone down and they listed ten of those "theories". Obama's happened to be listed first but to translate that as saying that the BBC said that Obama is the number one reason for US Crime reduction is .... well.... biased to put the best face on it. Shame on you.
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>"young black men, who are disproportionately involved in arrests for robbery and homicide"
What a very bizarre thing to say.
These people are "involved in arrests"? Is that different from being arrested?
I guess they couldn't possibly say that they disproportionately commit these crimes -- that would be unseemly. But they couldn't even bring themselves to say they are disproportionately arrested for these crimes. They are merely, somehow, involved in a whole lot of the arrests for these crimes.
Now we know what it takes to pass the PC filter over there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a second there, I was really hoping that the BBC was going to have an expose about how the President fights crime in his Batmobile after hours.
Disappointed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBlumstein is to criminology hackitude as the Beeb is to media hackitude. Always has been, always will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks to Obama, fewer people have anything that is worth stealing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one is mentioning that more people have guns than before. If the consequences of mugging some are that they pull a gun and shoot me, I'm much less likely to mug anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe increase in concealed carry was the first thought that came to my mind as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, any chance a conservative could make this point and NOT be called a racist by the left and the MSM (I know, redundant).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's the difference between the BBC and the North Korean press?
The North Korean press is more hard-hitting, objective, and willing to speak truth to power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Cooke: You didn't bother to read the article about which you're whining. It nowhere says or implies that it numbered the theories based on anything in particular - importance, credibility, correctness, etc.
Sometimes, if you have ten things to list, you just have to list them. I've got a list of things to go shopping for today and they're just in order of when I happened to think about them.
You could, I suppose, waste an extra line explaining to the More Stupid among your readers that you aren't trying to say anything about any of the theories based on their order, but why do you have to do everything in order to satisfy the Stupid People? They'll likely get it wrong anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse