Yesterday, the New York Times ran a front page story on the riots in France, focusing mainly on the government's response. The fifth paragraph caught my attention:
France was slow to react to the spreading violence set off by the accidental deaths of two youths on Oct. 27, in part because the initial nights of unrest did not seem particularly unusual in a country where an average of more than 80 cars a day were set on fire this year even before the violence.
An average of more than 80 cars a day were set on fire in France? Really? Math has never been my strong point, but since October 27th was the 300th day of this year, that means more than 24,000 cars were torched before the riots broke out. Again, really? That's a lot of cars.
While the statistic may be accurate, I was left feeling skeptical -- mostly because it wasn't cited. Where did this number come from? And why wasn't the source given? When a statistic is not a widely known fact, surely the writer should provide more information. And that's particularly necessary when the number sounds so outrageous that a reader's first instinct is to think it must have been inflated.
And if the statistic is accurate, then why haven't I heard more about it? Burning over 80 cars a day is hardly an insignificant problem and I wonder why there hasn't been more coverage of this phenomenon -- independent of the current situation in the country.
Christie Rizk @ November 9, 2005 - 7:34pm
Somehow, I seriously doubt that 80 cars a day are burned in France. But then again, I do tend to be biased in favor of the French, and I get really annoyed when the American press dumps on them.
»