A few days ago the New York Times provided yet another lesson in how to mislead readers without actually publishing anything untrue. Journalist Jo Craven McGinty published a 1500 word statistical look at murders in New York City that is more notable for what it omitted than what it actually told readers.

The article purported to offer detailed descriptions of who typically kills whom and why, the ages of murderers and victims, whether the killer and the killed knew each other, and so forth. We are informed of an interesting detail that 'women were more than twice as likely as men to murder a current spouse or lover. But once the romance was over, only the men killed their exes.' Fascinating.

But with all of these details, all the reader learns about race and murder in New York City:

'The offender and victim were of the same race in more than three—quarters of the killings.'

Later in the article, buried in between the oldest murder victim and the deadliest hour, the article reported that

'Whites and Asians, who seldom murdered, were also infrequently killed.'

Period. Out of 1500 words, that was it. There is nothing else important to say about race. OK. Apparently, New York City's race relations are pretty good, at least as far as the homicide statistics go.

But wait. Halfway down the online version, you can click on a link to get some statistics. (Or, in the printed version, if you turn from the front page, where the story is dead center, to page B—6 where it continues, you will find the real data.) These statistics include a map of the murder locations. Underneath the caption, it reads:

'There were 1,662 murders reported in New York City from 2003 through 2005, strongly concentrated in poorer neighborhoods.'  [Emphasis added.]

Thus, the Times would have us believe that the most telling fact of all of these statistics is that poorer people commit more murders. Fine. Not surprising. But as we go through the actual details of the statistics, we find the most telling but incredibly ignored statistic of all.
The breakdown of murderers by race is as follows: Black 61%; Hispanic 28%; White 7%; Asian 4%.

That statistic of course does not say much yet; what we want to know is how these statistics reflect back on the racial distribution of the overall population. Now, it becomes very interesting, apparently too interesting for the Times to even note:

Black 25%; Hispanic 27%; White 35%; Asian 11%. This of course means that while Blacks represent only 25% of the overall population, they represent more than 60% of the City's killers.

While the ratio of Hispanic murderers to their overall population percentage is 1:1, meaning they are not overly represented among murderers, the Black ratio is 2.44:1, establishing that Blacks are exceedingly over represented among murderers. Whites are exceedingly underrepresented and Asians also, but not as much as whites.

When you also look at the victims, it is indicative of a relatively murderous race killing itself:

Victims: Black 60%; Hispanic 27%; White 9%; Asian 4%.

Why would the New York Times not make mention of this fact within the 1500—word story? Why would the caption to these statistics suggest that the telling matter was poverty when the statistics don't address wealth at all? The paper merely surmises that the murders occurred in the poorer neighborhoods.

Since the Times apparently wanted not to 'play the race card,' even in the face of an entire hand of race cards, and chose rather to draw from the deck of poverty cards, even though the statistics were not about poverty, I thought it might be instructive to look at poverty among the races in New York City.

According to a report utilizing the 'latest data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,' and published by the Community Service Society, whose motto is, as set forth on the report, 'Fighting Poverty—Strengthening New York,' the poverty percentages for the races in New York City in 2002 were as follows:

Black 25.1%; Hispanics 28.7%; Whites 12.5%. In other words, 25.1% of Blacks live in poverty, while almost 29% of Hispanics do so.

This statistic suggests that while Hispanics are more likely to be 'poverty—stricken' than Blacks, Blacks kill 2.44 times more often given their per capita demographics.

This story does not really tell us much we didn't already know. That a segment of African—American sub—culture promotes crime and violence, illiteracy, sexual domination, and social irresponsibility is no secret. Indeed, it is now out in the open among those brave few (here or here) who feel secure enough to address the problem and to weather the withering attacks, led by the charge of 'racist', by the elites and the Rainbow Coalition types.

That Blacks kill almost 2.5 times their per capita representation in the City of New York might also not surprise many. Similarly, if you've grown up, lived, or worked long in the City and have come to know its neighborhoods and people, it might also not surprise you that even though Hispanics are more likely than Blacks to be poor and live in poverty, they are far less likely to murder.

The New York Times buries the real story on the statistics, even when the editors must know that we know these facts from our common experiences. No wonder the Times is now number three in paid circulation in New York City. Readers in touch with the realities of life on the streets turn away from obvious phoniness.  Investors also have discovered the company uses the same technique of burying unpleasant information in categories where few will notice, when it comes to the decline of its core business.

The New York Times isn't fooling us. But maybe it is fooling itself. A prominent institution continues to decline under the incompetent stewardship of an ideologically—obsessed heir.

David Yerushalmi is the proprietor of Sane.