Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Adding it up

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:31pm - 26 Comments

Bruce Cheadle takes apart a recent study that questioned Statistics Canada’s crime data.

Newark asserts that “many of the most common conclusions that are drawn about crime in Canada are in fact incorrect or badly distorted.” ”Serious violent crime is increasing,” the former executive officer of the Canadian Police Association flatly asserts.

While Newark’s report for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was given prominent coverage by both the Globe and Mail and National Post newspapers, the wider academic community that relies on the data was not consulted. Their reviews are scathing. ”It’s really badly done. It’s embarrassing, actually,” said Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • tobyornotoby

    The name didn't mean anything to me when I saw the original coverage of the report, so I looked back now to see how Scott Newark was idenfitied by reporters.

    Globe and Mail called him "former Alberta Crown prosecutor Scott Newark" and the National Post just called him "author Scott Newark."

    Neither thought it relevant to disclose that he was previously a special advisor to Stockwell Day, a security advisor to the Mike Harris government or a former Director of the Canadian Police Association which lobbies for increased police powers, funding and stronger sentences.

    It appears that any old institute, real, fake or in between, can release an idelogically-driven "study" and our lead newspapers will help them pass it off as a non-partisan academic study.

    • Jenn_

      Wait until they can just blatantly lie and say he was a member of the NDP or something.

  • briguyhfx

    Pointing out that Newark authored a methodologically weak report can only mean one thing: Cheadle hates the troops!

    • wsam

      And the troops hate Cheadle. A lot.

      • TimesArrow

        No one likes Cheadle a lot. It rots your guts and leads to a life of crime and permissiveness requiring a short sharp shock – like manditory minimums.

    • Dave

      I took it to mean Cheadle was just visiting.

      • wsam

        That fact Cheadle hates Canada explains his meaness toward nice Mr Newark.

  • noob_goldberg

    The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is quickly gaining the stellar reputation of such notable research bucket-shops as The Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Consumer Freedom.

    That's very quick work for an organization that's less than a year old.

    • CAPS

      Laurier should sue.

      MacDonald – as a proud Conservative (and one of the few I like) and a bit of a tippler would just find it a funny joke and not mind.

      • noob_goldberg

        A bit of a tippler? I admire your English talent for understatement.

    • MostlyCivil

      The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is right up there with the Canadian Sugar Institute in the credibility rankings:

      For instance, from the Sugar Institute FAQ's:

      Does sugar contribute empty calories?
      - The view that sugar contributes nothing but empty calories fails to recognize the role of sugar in the context of the total diet.

      *snerk*

    • BGLong

      Brian Lee Crowley has always been good.

      • noob_goldberg

        Well, I hope he's not letting the M-L Institute trade on his name then, because that report they released was abhorrent.

        If he's as good as you say he is, he should never have allowed that report to be published under the M-L banner.

        • BGLong

          Sorry. My wife got the sarcastic tone when I wrote that but apparently it didn't
          travel well beyond our household walls. From now on I'll get her to add an
          editorial note.

          • noob_goldberg

            Sarcasm is now appropriately noted :)

            I don't know Crowley from a hole in the ground, but I'll definitely know what to say to this organization the next time they come canvassing for money.

  • John D

    Heard Day quoting this "study" from his former staffer. Also heard Newark trying to defend it this morning. He was complaining that Statscan doesn't report it as murder unless the person dies. Ummm…

    • TimesArrow

      He also appeared to get upset when the host pointed out that statsCan did not keep certain stats because the info was either unavailable to them or in someway unusable. His response was an entirely pissy: "well they should get that then shouldn't they?" Right Mr Newark, with your winning way i'm sure they hopped right too it….even if it can;t be done.

      • noob_goldberg

        It's those pesky privacy constraints that keep getting in the way, which prevent StatCan from releasing any report or data which could enable someone to identify (or reasonably guess the identify of) a specific individual, company, or organization.

        I'm sure Mr. Newark would find it most expedient to remove that irritation.

  • Passing by

    I wish it mattered that his report is junk.

    Unfortunately, conservative talking points for years to come will quote this "study" to "prove" that there is real debate and division among people who know on whether crime rates are increasing or decreasing.

    Mission accomplished.

    Sigh.

    • TJCook

      Exactly. Scathing reviews simply don't matter – this report was produced to support bullsh*t talking points, and to support those who want to believe what it concludes.

      Those of us in the reality-based community will forever be expected to address this piece of work as though it were credible.

    • Mike T.

      It's positively Levant-ian!

  • tobyornotoby

    That could be it I guess but it's not just some detail from his bio. The articles do have some political context about the Conservative's position on crime stats, but without mentioning he's the guy who researched that position for them. It's journalistic malpractice bordering on a lie to leave the impression this report independently supports their direction.

    • TimesArrow

      You have a point. Still, i wonder if it was really deliberate or not? The byways of journalisn are a mystery to me. At least CBC radio nailed him today!

  • wsam

    I heard Newark being interviewed on CBC this morning. Every expert disagreed with him. When the interview returned to him he said this proves his report was right.

    Then he started yelling, so the interviewer cut him off. The guy seemed unbalanced.

    All proving that the CBC hates Canada.

  • TimesArrow

    And cheadle…no one likes chealdle, right?

  • wsam

    It's Cheadle hates everyone. Especially the troops. And Canada.

Previous

Next

From Macleans