tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8203221.post2124200424433731513..comments2008-02-11T13:22:54.201-08:00Richard Spraguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03470273961021829567richardsprague+blogger@gmail.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8203221.post-91367446363905088152008-02-11T13:22:54.201-08:002008-02-11T13:22:54.201-08:00Yes, true. And thanks for the link -- I hadn't seen that. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally that discussion of rich/poor economic trends reminds me of a recent Economist article that concludes <A HREF="http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328935" REL="nofollow">the rich really aren't all that different anymore</A>.Richard Spraguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03470273961021829567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8203221.post-7556974970997346432008-02-11T12:26:00.000-08:002008-02-11T12:26:00.000-08:00Unfortunately, the news has become lazy. It's easier to report salacious anecdotes than dig into real trends, supported by data and reputable research. This article is akin to the AP saying they will now cover Britney Spears and the press as a whole reporting more on the sleazy, the gossipy, the voyeuristic than the news than the meaningful. <BR/><BR/>One refreshing exception comes from the same newspaper at fault in this issue, the New York Times. Over the last year they've cut a lot of data in interesting ways, from the words used in the State of the Union to the spending graph in this article: <BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=75692916a2f54771&ei=5070<BR/><BR/>Real data, presented in a way that people can easily understand it. As a data junkie, I love it.MercerIsland Bloggerhttp://mercerislandblogger.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com