[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Open Letter to Washington Post from NCFM-DC
posted by Matt on 12:07 AM December 25th, 2004
National Coalition of Free Men I received the following (click "Read More..." for the text) from the NCFM-DC chapter. It seems they are not impressed by the Post's recent DV articles. No surprise there! Please read and e-mail the Post in support of the sentiments expressed.

The following letter is being sent to Leonard Downie, Executive Editor of the Washington Post. If you wish to support this letter, please e-mail the Washington Post at:

1. Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
2. Michael Getler, Ombudsman
E-mail: ombudsman@washpost.com

==================================================

December 24, 2004

Leonard Downie, Jr.
Executive Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Mr. Downie:

I am writing on behalf of the National Coalition of Free Men – DC Chapter to express our numerous concerns with the Washington Post's recent series on Maternal Homicide. The series, written by Donna St. George and others, consists of three main articles:

December 19: “Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths”
December 20: “Violence Intersects Lives of Promise”
December 21: “Mending Shattered Childhoods”

Before sharing our concerns, I will mention that others have expressed serious reservations about this series:

1. Jack Shafer, Slate editor-in-chief: THE MUDDLED MATERNAL MURDER SERIES LOSES ITS WAY [http://slate.msn.com/id/2111254/]

2. Richard Davis, vice president of Family Non-Violence Inc.: EXPECTANT MOTHERS’ REAL RISK OF VIOLENCE [http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/1222davis.html]

3. Mike LaSalle, MensNewsDaily.com editor: WOMAN STRANGLES EXPECTANT MOTHER, CUTS OUT BABY – ANDY ROONEY UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT [http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2004/12/woman-strangles-expectant-mother-cuts.htm]

The Maternal Homicide series contains many serious flaws, both of a journalistic and social nature:

DOES NOT REPRESENT GOOD JOURNALISM

On nine counts, the Maternal Homicide series does not measure up to accepted standards of good journalistic practice:

1. Gives a Distorted Picture

Research shows that women are just as likely as men to instigate domestic violence (DV).

Law professor Linda Kelly reviewed the domestic violence research in the Florida State University Law Review and concluded, "leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates." [http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf ].

And psychologist John Archer reviewed 522 articles and concluded, “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, 2000)

But the Washington Post series never acknowledges that domestic violence is a problem that affects men and women alike.

2. Does Not Include Relevant Context

The series focuses on 207 expectant or new mothers who were killed each year by their boyfriends or husbands. While tragic, the series does not mention that there were 4,022,000 -- over four million -- births in the United States in 2002.

While the articles foster the impression that maternal homicide is widespread, statistics reveal the exact opposite: only five one-thousandths of 1% of expectant or new mothers – that is, 0.005% – are victims of fatal domestic violence.

3. Ignores Conflicting Information

The series states most maternal homicides arise from domestic violence. To support that thesis, Donna St. George did an in-depth review of only 72 cases. On the basis of that review, she concludes that "nearly 30 percent" of them were not due to domestic violence.

St. George’s “nearly 30 percent” figure is very different from the large Massachusetts study that she cites. In Massachusetts, 62% of maternal homicides were not related to DV [www.mass.gov/dph/fch/safemoms/preg02rg.htm]. The large discrepancy between “nearly 30 percent” and 62% seriously undermines the thesis of the articles.

Clearly the reporter’s 72 cases do not consist of a representative sample, and therefore cannot provide the basis for drawing generalizations.

4. Contains Factual Errors

The "Researchers Stunned by Scope of Slayings" article states, “In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of maternal death, followed by cancer.”

That statement is incorrect. For White non-Hispanic women, the Massachusetts study found that motor vehicle accidents, not homicides, were the number one cause of injury-related death.

5. Imposes Agreement When No Agreement Exists

The Sunday article states, “many experts have come to agree that 4 percent to 8 percent of pregnant women – 160,000 to 320,000 a year – are physically hurt by husbands, boyfriends or partners.”

That statement is self-evidently false. A two-fold difference in the range of 160,000 to 320,000 DV cases a year does not represent anything that resembles “agreement.” And given the controversies in this field, why doesn’t St. George provide the reader with the names of her “experts”?

6. Relies on Innuendo

Sunday's article includes statements suggesting the problem may be far worse, but provides no factual basis for that implication: “The Unknown Toll,” “few could be sure they knew of all or even most cases,” etc.

7. Uses Emotion-Laden Headlines

"Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths," "Researchers Stunned by Scope of Slayings," and "Mending Shattered Childhoods" are the type of headlines one would expect to find in a supermarket tabloid, not in the Washington Post.

8. Provides Very Little News

The real "news" of the series can be summarized in a single sentence: Each year 295 new or expectant mothers die from homicides, and possibly 70% of these deaths are caused by boyfriends or husbands.

That finding deserves a single 1,000-word article, not the front-page recounting of tragic anecdotes that the series becomes fixated upon.

9. Represents “Red-Meat” Journalism

Fatal domestic violence against mothers is a highly emotional issue that deserves objective and balanced journalistic treatment. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the Maternal Homicide series.

DOES A DISSERVICE TO YOUR READERS

In addition to the above-listed journalistic flaws, the series does a disservice to the Washington Post readers:

1. Leaves the Reader with the Wrong Conclusion

By failing to mention that there are over four million births each year, the series implies that DV-related maternal deaths are commonplace. That is an ostensibly false conclusion.

2. Promotes a Form of "Rape Hysteria"

The series becomes overwhelmed with tragic anecdotes. Women are always depicted as victims, and men are portrayed as perpetrators. The parallels between this series and newspaper articles in the southern United States in the 1920s that promoted “rape hysteria” are disturbing indeed.

3. Ignores Abusive Women Who Need Help

Women who initiate domestic violence need help. By ignoring those women, society never focuses on assuring they can receive the counseling and therapy they need.

In summary, the Washington Post’s Maternal Homicide series, in both the journalistic and social senses, is grossly deficient. Whether intended or not, its effect is to stereotype and vilify men.

ACTIONS TO TAKE

Domestic violence is an important social issue, and it deserves balanced treatment by the Washington Post. Therefore we are requesting that you promptly implement the three following actions:

1. Schedule an educational session for your reporters and editors, to be presented by one or more of our Chapter members, on the scope, nature, and trends of domestic violence, based on the findings of scientific research.

2. Research and run a three-part series that features domestic violence against men. The series should address the following topics: research findings, how male victims are often ignored by DV programs and services, and what male victims can do to protect themselves and get help.

3. In all future DV articles, the Washington Post should assure that your reporters and editors provide a balanced and fair perspective.

In closing, I know that you are dedicated to the highest ideals of journalistic practice, and strive to assure that the Post reflects the best standards of objectivity and fairness. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

National Coalition of Free Men, DC Chapter
P.O. Box 1404
Rockville, MD 20849

cc:
Steve Coll, Managing Editor
Milton Coleman, Deputy Managing Editor
Michael Getler, Ombudsman
Donna St. George, Reporter

<  Washington Post DV Series Draws Criticisms | "Wars happen because men like fighting"  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Now that's solid journalism! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM December 25th, 2004 EST (#1)
Way to go NCFM-DC. In between celebrating Christmas and stuffing my face I'll get something off to the Post in support of what you've written. It was a joy to see the solid work you've done to refute the Washington Post's midandrist misinfoming propaganda. VAWA is the biggest fraud in America today, and the Washington Post certainly deseves credit for contributing to that scam with its three part series written by Donna St. George.

Sincerely, Ray
What More Can Be Said?....Excellent (Score:2)
by Luek on 08:36 PM December 25th, 2004 EST (#2)
Thanks National Coalition of Free Men, DC Chapter for a well researched and intelligent refutation of the emotive Maternal Homicide series.

Now I wonder if it will fall on deaf ears at he femiroid crazed Washington (com)Post? Well, as they say, Stupid is as stupid does.


excellent article (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:34 AM December 26th, 2004 EST (#3)
The Post's feminazis will have to do a lot of shaming and silencing if they want to avoid actually facing up to the important points NCFM-DC made.
Inflation of the Numbers - How they Did it (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:31 PM December 27th, 2004 EST (#4)
St. George’s “nearly 30 percent” figure is very different from the large Massachusetts study that she cites. In Massachusetts, 62% of maternal homicides were not related to DV [www.mass.gov/dph/fch/safemoms/preg02rg.htm]. The large discrepancy between “nearly 30 percent” and 62% seriously undermines the thesis of the articles.

Okay. I looked up the Massachusetts study to see what is specifically stated about the injury deaths of pregnant women. I wanted to know the specific language they used.

Here is what I found:

Causes of Injury Deaths

Homicide was the leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths (38%). The majority of these murders were known or alleged domestic violence. Motor vehicle collisions and drug overdoses, respectively, accounted for 26% and 20% of pregnancy-associated injury deaths.

Okay. I'm doing basic math here now. 100-38=62. In this context we can say that the majority of pregnancy-associated injury deaths were caused by non-homicide related events.

46% of the deaths were related to drugs or vehicle collisions. 16% of the deaths were caused by some other means.

The biggest problem with this study is that it relies upon "alleged" cases of domestic violence to inflate the number of deaths. We must ask how many of the "alleged" deaths were included in the 38% figure, and that MUST be subtracted out for the conclusion to be valid.

In this case the conclusion which states, "Homicide was the leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths (38%)" is an outright lie that is founded in causes of death that may or may not be real.

So let's go to the source study and see if more can be learned there.

Source study where the lies are invented can be found here.

The study notes:

“Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Ratios, 1990-1999

Findings

How do injuries contribute to the overall pregnancy-associated mortality ratio?

From 1990 to 1999, 232 women were identified who met the definition of a pregnancy-associated death. Of the 232 deaths, more than one-third (n=80) were injury-related.”

Ah. The truth comes out. The studied found that in reality there were 232 women who had a pregnancy-associated death. Of those, ~34% (80) of the deaths were related to an injury!“

And here is the big lie. The Marxist-Feminist claim, “ Homicide was the leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths (38%). The majority of these murders were known or alleged domestic violence.”

Notice that inflated 38%? They get it by hacking and manipulating the numbers.

Clearly, where there is alleged domestic violence there is no proven case of domestic violence. A woman could have simply gotten tired, tripped over the edge of a carpet, fallen down the stairs and died!

But because there is an alleged domestic partner they assume the death was the result of domestic violence.

Watch that 38% number as I go through the real numbers, and observe how the Marxist-Feminist use language to steer the reader into believing that domestic violence is the number one cause of the death of pregnant women.

Fact number 1:

If 34% of pregnancy-associated deaths are injuries then it is impossible for violence of any kind to be the number one cause of a pregnant woman’s death.

Fact number 2:

Of the pregnancy associated deaths there were 30 women who died from violence. This means that of the pregnancy-associated deaths that in fact ~13% of women died from a homicide.

Notice that that 38% number just disappeared.

Fact number 3:

The study states: “Two-thirds (n=20) of homicide deaths were known or alleged cases of domestic violence.”

What??!?!? What happened to the huge number of 30 deaths? Oh. I see. On seven of the deaths nobody alleged domestic violence. So, in the appearance of propriety they left off seven. Then there were 3 that were known murders where there was no domestic partner. So they ended up with 20 deaths they claim that are related to domestic violence. Who knows how many of the alleged cases are actually false allegations or mistaken information. Notice also there is no longer a presumption of innocence on the part of the male. If there is an allegation against the male then it is now assumed that he killed his pregnant wife.

That means that at most ~8.6% of the pregnancy-associated deaths were caused by a domestic partner.

Again, note that the study is uncertain of the actual relationship because of how they determined the relationship in the following quote:

“In order to identify homicide deaths due to domestic violence, the relationship between the victim and assailant was ascertained from newspaper articles and from local organizations including the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, Jane Doe Inc., and Peace at Home.”

There is no possible way that these sources can be can be considered reliable in determining the relationship between a man and a woman. The reasons are many and obvious!

Fact Number 4:

There are 21 pregnant women that died in a motor vehicle collision. This means that 9% of the deaths were accident related. It is now clear that the number one cause of death for pregnant women is motor vehicle accidents. Not domestic violence as the lies imply.

Fact Number 5: Here is their definition of homicide and domestic violence.

Homicide:

A fatal injury inflicted by another person
with intent to injure or kill by any means.
Intentional injury deaths include confirmed
homicides including domestic violence.

Domestic violence: A homicide where the
assailant was known or alleged to be an
intimate partner or family member of the
victim.

Notice that again the study does not rely upon proof of an actual relationship. If there is a mere allegation of a relationship then the statistics are inflated with unproven myths.

In conclusion once again by mere allegations, males are assumed guilty of murder. All of the Marxist-Feminist studies are like this in that they all rely on some mechanism to inflate the numbers and vilify the male gender.

Warble
[an error occurred while processing this directive]