A discussion on political violence and media coverage turned to the reliability of commonly cited data sources during an exchange between Katie Pavlich and Batya Ungar-Sargon, who argued that widely used research is flawed and presents an incomplete picture.

Pavlich raised the issue by referencing claims that political violence is equally driven by both sides of the political spectrum.

“Geraldo brought up this idea that the left and the right are equal when it comes to calls for violence or acts of violence,” Pavlich said.

She pointed to Ungar-Sargon’s analysis of the issue and asked, “You have done an amazing job of digging through the data, and what did you find?”

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Ungar-Sargon responded by identifying several sources frequently cited by mainstream media outlets when making claims about political violence.

“All right, so Geraldo, see if you find this compelling,” she said.

She continued, “So it seems to me that there are three main sources that you hear a lot from the mainstream media that allegedly prove that the problem we have right now of political violence is a both sides problem.”

She named the organizations as the Cato Institute, the Prosecution Project at the University of Cincinnati, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

According to Ungar-Sargon, these sources are regularly referenced in major publications.

“Now these are all always shared by the likes of The Economist The Wall Street Journal today shared Center for Strategic and International Studies,” she said.

Ungar-Sargon argued that closer examination of the data from these sources reveals significant gaps.

“The problem is, is when you dig down into that data, it is so deeply flawed,” she said.

She then provided examples related to how incidents are counted.

“Let me just give you a few examples,” she said. “Okay, the prosecution project supposed to list all of the acts of political violence in America.”

She said certain incidents were not included in that dataset.

“Does not list Charlie Kirk's assassination does not list Trump's assassination attempts does not list any George Floyd violence,” Ungar-Sargon said.

She added, “24 Americans lost their lives during those riots, not listed.”

At the same time, she described what she said were inclusions that raised questions about methodology.

“But every white nationalist who is a drug dealer that gets listed, so they list 33 white Aryans, Aryan Nation people who had a meth lab,” she said.

“This is political violence because they happen to be white nationalists.”

Ungar-Sargon then turned to another source.

“All right, Cato does not list the 911 victims,” she said.

“Does not list any George Floyd violence.”

She also addressed the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the sources it relies on.

“Center for Strategic and International Studies. Where does it get its data from?” she asked.

“The ADL, highly partisan and the southern which just was revealed to have allegedly been funding the very racists that they were supposed to be fighting.”

She also referenced how certain incidents are categorized within the data.

“And finally, I just have to mention this, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has in its methodology section, it says all anti semitism is right wing,” Ungar-Sargon said.

She continued, “any attacks on Jews or Jewish institutions, they reclassified it if it was in the name of Palestinians, they reclassified it as ethno nationalist.”

She concluded that such classifications distort the overall picture.

“So by their definition, there is no such thing as left wing anti semitism, which we all know is just nonsense,” she said.

Ungar-Sargon summarized her view of the data and its implications for public understanding.

“This is the data. It is flawed,” she said. S

he added, “Shame on the Wall Street Journal and shame on the economist, because they're giving a flawed view.”

She tied her argument back to the broader discussion raised by Pavlich.

“And I totally agree with Katie, we can't,” Ungar-Sargon said.

She continued, “It would be so nice to say Kumbaya. We all share the problem.”

She concluded with a statement about addressing political violence.

“You cannot fix a problem if you are lying about what it is,” she said.

WATCH:

 

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.