
How people die vs. media coverage of death - rkaplan
https://owenshen24.github.io/charting-death/
======
qznc
They use media coverage and conflate it with "general public sentiment" and
how "people think we die". While the wording seems to be carefully crafted
that it avoids stating something outright wrong, it does suggest that they are
the same.

Are there studies that compare media coverage with surveys on how people think
we die?

~~~
owenshen24
There are! The most famous one is this one
[https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794...](https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22549/Slovic_089.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
and the results are largely in-line w/ what one might expect.

> Two kinds of bias were identified: (a) a tendency to overestimate small
> frequencies and underestimate larger ones, and (b) a tendency to exaggerate
> the frequency of some specific causes and to underestimate the frequency of
> others, at any given level of objective frequency

~~~
lqdc13
Problem with such use of statistics is that we underestimate black swan
events.

Humans are intuitively better at it. For example, it would be impossible to
predict something like 911 event with such frequentist analysis.

Also impossible to predict some sort of nuclear disaster terrorist act that
never happened before and could take a million lives.

Another thing to keep in mind is the "missing life" (dying young) and quality
of life after disease. That's why something like Alzheimer's seems a lot worse
than heart disease.

~~~
im3w1l
Yeah "dying of war" is much more likely than you would think by looking at
what Americans died of last 10 years. The same could go for anything that
happens rarely but kills a lot of people when it does.

911 was probably too few deaths to make an impact in the statistics though.
You'd need something killing tens of millions of people

------
owenshen24
Hey everyone,

I'm super stoked to see this project getting some more traction!

I was responsible for the visualizations / the scraping, so I'm happy to
answer any questions people might have about the whole process.

^_^

~~~
mars4rp
The coloring of the chart is awful, alzheimer and terrorism having almost
identical color.

~~~
troels
I have to concur. I was confused for a moment about the staggering number of
deaths caused by terrorism, until I realised what was going on.

------
jchw
Many people are pointing out that it's pretty obvious the news reports more on
rarer events. True, but also people don't necessarily realize this when
watching the news. I can anecdotally guarantee some of my family members fully
believe that homicides are responsible for significantly more deaths than
cancer.

------
baking
100% of people die from being born. If this data is not segregated by age, it
is pretty much meaningless. People don't die of "natural causes" or "old age"
any more because the doctors are required to list something previously
diagnosed on the death certificate (or else the doctor is looking at a
lawsuit.) And the family member who happens to be there at the time of death
is in no mood to put up an argument. No one wants to do an autopsy and
invasive tests for a frail failing elderly patient are even worse.

~~~
fastball
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that dying of heart disease and cancer are over-diagnosed? Why
does that matter in the context of this analysis? It's a comparison between
CDC data and news coverage -- any "over-diagnosis" (or under-diagnosis) should
be reflected in all datasets equally, so it doesn't really effect the overall
review.

~~~
baking
Everyone dies. The only significance of death is if it occurs sooner than
otherwise expected. For the vast majority of people that die in old age what
to list on the death certificate can be a conundrum, but it is safe to say no
one will ever be sued for malpractice if heart disease is listed as the cause
of death. 80% of all deaths due to heart disease occur in the 65 and older
population.

[https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2015-a.pdf)

EDIT: Take the data from the above table multiply the deaths by the number of
"years of life lost" (65 minus the mid-range age for each column) and ignoring
the 65 and older age group and I think you might see a better correlation with
news coverage.

~~~
fastball
Right, but I think the point of the OP is to say "Good news everybody! Despite
what you've seen on TV and read in the paper, you're still overwhelmingly more
likely to die of old age than at the hands of murderers/terrorists."

And to go along with that, I believe it is trying to ask the question "is it
not just as important to follow the trends in so-called 'death by natural
causes' as it is to follow trends for 'unnatural causes', at least as far as
public awareness/good is concerned?"

~~~
baking
If I was over 65 (and I'm close) I would worry more about what put me in the
hospital than what appeared on my death certificate. The two are surprisingly
unrelated in the elderly.

------
CalRobert
Thanks!! It's kind of amazing how skewed our view of reality is. Saying "I
don't care about terrorism" gets you dirty looks but is a reasonable approach
to life if you live in wealthy country and are are trying to worry about
things most likely to affect you.

I care about gun violence and knew it was overreported, but it blew my mind to
find out that there are about twice as many deaths per year from just asbestos
are there are gun homicides. I wonder how many other misconceptions there are?
(Total gun deaths is much higher due to suicide and accidents)

~~~
hansthehorse
When presented with gun violence statistics ask them to take out gang related
and suicide then you can more accurately use the information.

~~~
CalRobert
Well, those statistics aren't wrong, they just tell a different story.

Gun suicides matter, but we might address those very differently from
homicides.

Gang-related violence... I'm not sure why I'd exclude that? They're human
beings. The term also is very unevenly applied and laws meant to target "gang-
related violence" have a tendency to burden minorities more heavily. (See
also: "terrorism")

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/magazine/how-do-you-
defin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/magazine/how-do-you-define-a-
gang-member.html)

~~~
DanBC
> Gun suicides matter, but we might address those very differently from
> homicides.

The main prevention measure for both murder and suicide is to reduce access to
methods.

It's fine for a nation to say they make the choice not to restrict access to
guns, but they need to be honest about the increased numbers of people dying
this will cause.

~~~
gknoy
> reduce access to methods

A sibling questioned the validity of this for suicide, and I agree. Anyone
sufficiently motivated to kill themselves will find a way. Knife, rope, drug
overdose, threaten a police officer, vehicular "accident", skydiving, move-to-
Oregon (for legally assisted suicide, that is -- OR's a nice place :)), sit in
the garage while the car is running... every single one of these things is
something that a suicidal person could come up with quite easily, and do, even
if they don't have a firearm.

The only thing reducing access to firearms will do is change the method of
suicide. Humans have been finding ways to do it for thousands of years.

~~~
srean
This line of argument "For a sufficiently [blah] ...." rarely adds value, be
it "a sufficiently smart compiler ..." or "sufficiently motivated individual".

These add little to no value because in most of the cases where such a line of
argument is put forward, there is a sizable set that do not satisfy the "for a
sufficiently [blah]" condition. Not only are these sets sizeable, sometimes
they are the particularly relevant set.

Many suicidal people have been talked out of it. So its not hard to believe
that lack of access to quick measures would have influence.

Digression: I blame movies for popularizing shooting at one's temple. That's
how many end up with a botched attempt. If one must, one should take out the
brain stem as quickly as possible.

------
pmoriarty
There's a fascinating documentary called "A Certain Kind of Death",[1] which
shows what happens in the US when someone dies with no next of kin.

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErooOhzE268](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErooOhzE268)

------
dbatten
So, the media reports on rare, interesting things, not mundane everyday
things? I'm shocked!

~~~
losteric
The news is supposed to keep the public informed... fusing of entertainment
and information, along with corporate mergers, has brought us to this
unhealthy state of public awareness. Our society is becoming more paranoid
because it boosts ratings and profit.

A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which
translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending
"war on terror". Meanwhile heart disease/cancer silently kills 1.1 million
Americans every year.

~~~
rs999gti
> A prime example is the American public's irrational fear of terrorism, which
> translates to pouring unfathomable amounts of tax dollars into the unending
> "war on terror". Meanwhile heart disease/cancer silently kills 1.1 million
> Americans every year.

The same thing could be said for the gun control narrative being pushed by the
media and politicians. If gun deaths are classified as homicides and using CDC
numbers, they account for less than 1% of deaths.

However, looking at the same data on the site for the Guardian and NYT, it
looks like the wild west out there and homicides are the leading cause of
death next to cancer.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I would elaborate on that as well. The main focus of the media is on "assault
style weapons" which translates to semi-automatic rifles. Of that < 1% of
deaths, rifles (of any sort) are the weapon type in less than 3%. Literally
nearly all gun deaths are caused by pistols, yet the media obsesses on rifles.
Even if we filter to mass shootings, the primary weapon is most often, again,
a pistol. [1]

How many people are aware of these data? I think that ignorance is going to be
primarily the media's fault.

[1] - [https://news.vice.com/article/glock-pistol-omar-mateen-
orlan...](https://news.vice.com/article/glock-pistol-omar-mateen-orlando-mass-
shooting)

~~~
losteric
yeah... focusing on "assault weapons" is just divisive clickbait and
legislative bikeshedding. Regulations should keep guns out of crazy and
criminal hands, period.

------
nemild
This is awesome! You might really like All the News That's Fit to Sell which
is a deep dive into the media economics behind why things are covered — it
gives lots of color for why coverage is the way it is (there's a famous
journalism saying: "If it bleeds, it leads" — which speaks to the
readership/profits that come from covering vivid deaths)

If useful, I did a similar analysis, but just for the NY Times vs WHO/CDC (I
manually tagged an year of articles by cause of death vs. this article's
ability to see across many years):

 _In 2015-6, the deaths that are most covered are a tiny fraction ( <1%) of
the way we die_: [https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-
films.html](https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html)

You can also extend the analysis to see how death coverage varies by region
(those who are culturally similar to us get more coverage):

 _How Media Fuels our Fear of Western Terrorism_ :
[https://www.nemil.com/s/part2-terrorism.html](https://www.nemil.com/s/part2-terrorism.html)

~~~
owenshen24
This is super great! Thanks for sharing!

------
lalp1
Another good example that "data" is not always meaningful. The graphs help the
idea "media are talking too much about terrorism".

All deaths are not equal. Most of old people die naturally from an heart
failure or cancer, that the natural process of death. Homicides and accidents
are not natural but common. Terrorism is an exception, that's why it so much
covered.

100 old people dying from cancer do not worth 1 minute of press coverage, a
family killed by a truck in a christmas market a bit more.

~~~
ArchTypical
It's not even so much about the rarity of events, but the violation of
Informed Consent. The fundamental assumption in modern society is that you
know there are dangers and their relative frequency, so that you may make
decisions based on that for you to reach a mental equilibrium of risk vs
reward. Someone/something acting psuedo-randomly to violate that equilibrium
to an extreme (where there are brutally less choices available due to
paralysis or fatal event for an individual or group) is what people react to.
They want to incorporate these semi-random events into their daily equilibrium
in the form of perceived patterns. This eventually leads to more extreme views
(some form of theoretical pattern that fits), in lieu of data.

------
emj
It's actually worse, because you have to factor in media attention,
advertisement, bias etc to things that makes the problem worse; e.g. most of
those hearts and respitory deaths can be attributed to pollution and lack of
exercise, that means the car and all that it brings.

You are inundated with positive coverage of cars all over, they are vehemently
supported in most pieces and comments. Pair that with;

    
    
        Heart Disease              10.388 Under
        Car Accidents               2.285 Under
        Lower Respiratory Disease   3.520 Under

------
coldtea
> _" Although all diseases claim almost 1,OOO times as many lives as do
> homicides, there were about three times as many articles about homicides
> than about all diseases. Furthermore, homicide articles tended to be more
> than twice as long as articles reporting deaths from diseases and
> accidents."_

Doesn't that make sense? If diseases kill 1000x more people, they are not news
-- they're same old, what has been going on since forever.

Now, if there a novel disease or epidemic, sure, that would get coverage.

------
DrScump
This week's episode of Science Goes to the Movies[0] was a repeat from last
summer on Emergency Medicine as portrayed in film/TV vs reality:

[0]
[http://www.cuny.tv/show/sciencegoestothemovies/PR2006291](http://www.cuny.tv/show/sciencegoestothemovies/PR2006291)

------
partycoder
According to the charts, most people die of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

First, most people think their habits and diet are not leading them to a
cardiovascular disease. Then, those conditions that primarily afflict a
specific demographic. So it might not be as relevant to someone who is let's
say, less than 40 years old.

~~~
perilunar
Which is a good thing, because it means most people are dying of old age.

You can't officially die of "old age" so if you avoid or survive everything
else, eventually you are going die from cancer or heart disease. Problem is
though, if you improve cancer treatment then more people will die of heart
disease, and vice versa.

We really need a category for "died peacefully of advanced age", where we can
try hard to _increase_ the death rate.

------
arca_vorago
I'd love to see room for competition in media that took a different path if it
wasn't already all monopolies and bribes _cough_ lobbying and the
innefectuality of the FCC in it's mandate.

A strong fourth estate is essential to the proper functioning of the
constitutional democractic republic.

------
caseymarquis
Huh. Something like 1 in 20 people will likely have their lives end in a car
accident.

~~~
baking
I think the data is for "unintentional injury" (or death from injury excluding
homicide or suicide.)

This category is actually the number one cause of death for ages 1-44. The
numbers are fairly constant from ages 15 to 64 but the rate jumps up by a
factor of 2.5 after age 65. Assuming that retirees are not just taking up sky
diving, this is probably due to increased frailty and hospitalizations caused
by falls.

[https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2015-a.pdf)

EDIT: It seems that in addition to car accidents, poisoning, overdoses, and
falls, make up the vast majority of this category.

------
osteele
Cf. xkcd #1468 How worried you should be when various things happen to you in
movies vs. real life.

[https://www.xkcd.com/1468/](https://www.xkcd.com/1468/)

~~~
tejohnso
Seems like there's a joke about movies portraying chest wounds on one's left
side being much more serious than on the right side. But I don't get it.

~~~
garblegarble
>Seems like there's a joke about movies portraying chest wounds on one's left
side being much more serious than on the right side

I'm guessing it's because your heart is on the left (unless you have situs
inversus), so he's arguing movies treat a chest wound on the left as hitting
the heart

~~~
baking
It's a movie cliche. Shot on the left side, you are a gonner. Shot on the
right, you'll be just fine. So you don't have to worry about whether your
favorite character is going to make it to the end of the movie or not.

------
robryan
The mainstream commercial news in Australia seems to cover every unusual death
that has occurred in the past day. I guess those kind of stories rate well.

------
raarts
Would be interesting to see this data for other countries, and comparing for
example the overrepresentation factors for violence and terrorism.

------
acidburnNSA
Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days.
I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when
a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently
still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and
kill us.

~~~
lifeformed
I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how
unsafe it makes people feel.

~~~
leetcrew
i am one of those people who think that we should allocate resources against
causes of death in close proportion to the number of lives claimed. my guess
is that many other engineering types also take this position.

recently however, i have come to worry that this position lacks empathy.
especially in light of recent mass shootings in the US, i am forced to
consider that some types of deaths have far worse second order effects than
others. if ten people die on different days out in the woods, ten sets of
family and friends are devastated. tragic, but if ten students are killed at
school in the same day, it seems that the lasting damage is far more severe
and widespread.

to some extent you can say that's just because people are emotional/irrational
and they are blocking optimal allocation, but maybe the optimal solution
_does_ need to take into account how people feel about things. maybe things
like terrorism and mass shootings are actually a lot more harmful than the
numbers suggest.

~~~
gnode
The issue is more that due to highly asymmetric reporting, people wrongly
estimate what the risks to themselves and loved ones are. This means that we
don't act rationally in our own interests, to best avoid harm. I think most
parents would care more about road safety, carbon monoxide poisoning, mental
health, etc. than about terrorism or school shootings, if they were aware of
the statistics.

------
frostycakepie
Our brains look for/create drama + drama gets views. To the first point, I’m
reading the book Factfulness, and it covers this stuff pretty eye openingly
we’ll.

