I remember about 5 months ago when the Washington Post published an article featuring a quote from a top weather nerd. The article attempted to answer whether we were going to have a snowy winter or not. Here’s the quote, almost verbatim:
“Right now we expect a 50% chance of having more snow than average, and a 50% chance of having less snow than average.”
So basically we were going to have an average winter. Thanks for putting it in simple terms, geek. Well the Post strikes again, this time with a confusing headline:
…census figures [indicate] that the city’s population dipped by nearly 20,000 between 2000 and July 2004. City officials dispute the decline, citing a growth in housing units and the apparent stability of school enrollment. They have set a goal of boosting the D.C. population by 100,000 by the end of the decade.
I admire the Post for trying to spin a positive on the city losing 20,000 residents in four years. The “gains” came with a growing yuppie population (25-34), but if the net loss was greater, shouldn’t it be called “D.C. Population Shows Some Gains, But Much Greater Losses”? And how can the city “dispute” a census report by saying school enrollment is stable? That doesn’t make sense. And how is the city going to gain 25,000 residents a year by 2010 when they just lost that much in four? Arrrrrgh my head is starting to hurt.
And the hurting has stopped.