'Times' Ombud Finds Flaws in 'War Torn' Series

Score one for the New York Times haters. Clark Hoyt takes a look at the paper's controversial "War Torn" series in his public editor column today, and finds it wanting. Hoyt essentially agrees with the various conservative columnists and bloggers who have slammed the series for relying on flawed methodology in concluding that combat in Iraq and Afghanistan leaves U.S. soldiers more likely to commit violent crimes.

Of course, Hoyt stops short of joining the right-wingers in accusing the Times of intentionally smearing veterans as bloodthirsty psychos. Here's his summation:

The individual stories the series has told so far are indeed sad, powerful and important. One hopes they will goad the military to figure out what went wrong and what needs fixing.

But the questionable statistics muddy the message. A handful of killings caused by the stresses of war would be too many and cause for action. Sometimes, trying to turn such stories into data -- with implications of statistical proof and that old journalistic convention, the trend -- harms rather than helps.