Analyses that cite the Anti‑Defamation League’s “extremist‑related killings” to prove political violence skews right often miss that the ADL includes any homicide by an extremist, even when the motive isn’t political. Using this number to characterize ideologically motivated violence overstates one side’s share.
— Clarifying what this high‑profile metric measures would improve media coverage and policymaking about political extremism and reduce misleading one‑sided blame.
Davide Piffer
2025.12.03
62% relevant
The author explicitly notes the ISTAT measure is an aggregate of reported offenses and cautions about what that composite captures — paralleling the listed idea that headline metrics can be misleading if users conflate reporting counts with motive‑attributable violence; both pieces stress measurement nuance in public debate about crime.
BeauHD
2025.12.02
62% relevant
Both pieces illustrate how a seemingly authoritative metric can be used (or contested) to shape public perceptions and policy; Zillow’s removal of First Street scores after MLS complaints mirrors how disputes over what a metric actually measures (and how it’s presented) change the public narrative and policy responses.
Aporia
2025.11.29
75% relevant
Both the article and this idea call out how high‑profile, easy‑to‑cite metrics are misused to produce one‑sided narratives; the wallet experiment is treated like definitive proof of 'Chinese dishonesty' the way ADL tallies are sometimes treated as definitive proof of ideological violence.
Steve Sailer
2025.10.03
60% relevant
Like the critique of ADL metrics, this piece questions a prominent dataset (Cato’s list) used to assign ideological blame by noting selective timeframes (starting in 1975) and high‑impact omissions (Jonestown), showing how counting rules shape partisan conclusions.
Cathy Young
2025.10.01
100% relevant
The article highlights the ADL fine print noting inclusion of non‑ideological killings and questions Vox’s use of the figure to assert a right‑wing monopoly on violence.