100% of people die from being born. If this data is not segregated by age, it is pretty much meaningless. People don't die of "natural causes" or "old age" any more because the doctors are required to list something previously diagnosed on the death certificate (or else the doctor is looking at a lawsuit.) And the family member who happens to be there at the time of death is in no mood to put up an argument. No one wants to do an autopsy and invasive tests for a frail failing elderly patient are even worse.
How people die vs. media coverage of death
31–40 of 93 posts
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#32So, the media reports on rare, interesting things, not mundane everyday things? I'm shocked!
The news is supposed to keep the public informed... fusing of entertainment and information, along with corporate mergers, has brought us to this unhealthy state of public awareness. Our society is becoming more paranoid because it boosts ratings and profit. A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending "war on…
> A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending "war on terror". Meanwhile heart disease/cancer silently kills 1.1 million Americans every year.
The same thing could be said for the gun control narrative being pushed by the media and politicians. If gun deaths are classified as homicides and using CDC numbers, they account for less than 1% of deaths.
However, looking at the same data on the site for the Guardian and NYT, it looks like the wild west out there and homicides are the leading cause of death next to cancer.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#33Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and kill us.
I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.
Ok but that's just the definition of fear. There's no reasoning behind those feelings.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#34Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and kill us.
I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.
Yeah, and people likewise discount the deaths caused by cancer and heart disease because these are diseases of old age. People generally think humans aren't supposed to live forever, so they see old people dying of these diseases as "natural".
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#35Hey everyone, I'm super stoked to see this project getting some more traction! I was responsible for the visualizations / the scraping, so I'm happy to answer any questions people might have about the whole process. ^_^
Hello, Owen, from another Owen!
I actually find this pretty funny as overrepresentation of certain causes of death is something I've been talking about to friends and family for years, and I was actually recently thinking to compile some data on it. Hilarious that another Owen beat me to it!
One thing I've been meaning to write about for a while is terrorism specifically. I was thinking of writing something refuting the idea of "so few people die of terrorism because we spend so much, if we spent less it'd be a massive problem." Is that something you've thought of at all?
Have you thought of using this data for anything else? Maybe writing some blog posts about the data or looking at a wider range of publications and comparing them for which are more "accurate" in their articles on death?
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#36100% of people die from being born. If this data is not segregated by age, it is pretty much meaningless. People don't die of "natural causes" or "old age" any more because the doctors are required to list something previously diagnosed on the death certificate (or else the doctor is looking at a lawsuit.) And the family member who happens to be there at the time of death is in no mood to put up an argument. No one w…
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.
Are you saying that dying of heart disease and cancer are over-diagnosed? Why does that matter in the context of this analysis? It's a comparison between CDC data and news coverage -- any "over-diagnosis" (or under-diagnosis) should be reflected in all datasets equally, so it doesn't really effect the overall review.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#37Hey everyone, I'm super stoked to see this project getting some more traction! I was responsible for the visualizations / the scraping, so I'm happy to answer any questions people might have about the whole process. ^_^
I love the graphs, but the way they’re used in this article is very annoying on an iPhone. That scroller is hard to grab and when i zoom i cannot are all the data anymore. No better in landscape mode. Not sure if you can influence that, but thought I’d give the feedback since you mentioned the visualizations.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#38Would be interesting to see this data for other countries, and comparing for example the overrepresentation factors for violence and terrorism.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't make much sense for the news to report on things which were not newsworthy. That people die from very typical things people always die from just isn't news.
But people have always died from violence. It's hardly news.
Fewer people die to violence now than they ever did. That’s what makes it news.
Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.
Yeah, and people likewise discount the deaths caused by cancer and heart disease because these are diseases of old age. People generally think humans aren't supposed to live forever, so they see old people dying of these diseases as "natural".
"Natural" perhaps. "Not really possible to prevent" is something like a steelmanned version of it; maybe something like an artificial heart could keep people alive, but maybe such people's bodies are usually worn down enough that the best medicine in the world couldn't keep 90% of them alive for 5 more years.
This brings me to the question: What are the data on deaths in certain age brackets? If, say, media coverage was proportional to the number of people under 18 or under 25 who died, or perhaps some sum of "f(age(person))" where e.g. f(under 18) = 1, f(18-25) = 0.9, f(65+) = 0.01... then that would be a very striking result. (I guess if the smallest weight is 0.01, then no disparities exceeding 100x, such as the terrorism ~4000x disparity, can be explained.)
Edit: Well, here we go. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...
Unintentional Injury is cause #1 for ages 1-44. Suicide is #2 for 15-34, #3 for 10-14, and less for higher ages. Homicide is #3 for 15-34 and 1-4 (!), and #4 for 5-14. Cancer is #2 for 5-14 and 35-44, #4 for 1-4 and 15-34. Congenital Anomalies is #1 for If you figure that the news media only cares about young people, it goes some distance towards explaining matters...