It's interesting how the exact same facts can be described in so many different ways, in order to imply vastly different conclusions.<p>-----<p><i>"This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco"</i><p>Implication - the county's law & order apparatus is dysfunctional and is oppressing the local population<p>-----<p><i>"This small Indiana county has more convicted drug dealers than San Francisco"</i><p>Implication - the county has a severe drug problem, and harsh efforts are needed to combat this problem<p>-----<p><i>"This small Indiana county catches more hard-drug-dealers than San Francisco"</i><p>Implication - either other counties are incompetent/indifferent in combating the selling of hardcore drugs, or this county is exceptionally good at achieving this goal.<p>-----<p><i>"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"</i><p>Implication - the county's law & order system is tough but fair, and should be a role model for others in pursuing White criminals just as vigorously as Minority criminals.<p>-----<p>The phrasing involved in <i>"sending more people to prison"</i> in particular, sweeps under the rug the fact that the people being sent to prison are dealing hard drugs, and spawning/enabling a generation of drug addicts whose lives are going to fall apart as a result. Instead of making the drug dealers the lead actors who initiated the subsequent chain of events, the headline is structured such that the county's justice system is portrayed as the lead actor instead. Neither wording is <i>wrong</i>, but they clearly bias the audience in different directions.<p>I trust the NYTimes more than any other American media source, but it's hard to deny that they too have their own spin that focuses more on one side of the story, more so than others.