Comparisons

I decided to give the news a go...because I know that I don't watch it enought blah blah blah.

So It was the end of the 5:00 news, on channel 11.
There were only a few stories I watched by they were all comparisons!

The first story was a part of their "State of our Unions" series. And they talked about diversity in marriages and I thought, going with the times, they'd talk about gay marriages but no they talked about racial diversity in marriages! (I had no idea it was the 60s) anyway, they talked about the percentage of marriages that were interracial in 1970 compared to today. It was like 1.2% compared to todays around 9%. So are we suppose to think thats better because it raised a lot? but still 9% is nowhere near the majority or very high...so what exactly was the point? In 30 years will we finally have news reports on gay marriages? Seems to be a little bit behind the times...but thats my opinion.

The second was on pedestrian deaths (which hit closer to home with recent events), in San Jose and the opening statement was You are more likely to be killed crossing then street then by a burgeler, and later they said, the number of peopel killed crossing the streets is higher than homicide. And I'm like. What does that mean. Does that mean 2 people are killed on the street and 1 by homicide? or 500 on the street and 250 homicide?
Seems skittish.
Turns out in 2006 the number was like 6. So I'd say ...San Jose is relatively safe, although I understand the point and the number should be zero, but it seemed so unneccessarily dramamtic to say, you are more likely to be killed crossing the street then be murdered.

How ethical are comparasions? How ethical is it to say, this more than this and then not give numbers? Or to use comparisons at all? Seems like an easy way out to say that something is important. I just don't like it. feels lazy