Modern journalism

/

Let’s ask ChatGPD:

“Drug trafficking, Distribution of child pornography, burglary, fraud, DUI, embezzlement, solicitation of a minor, human smuggling are all categorized as ‘non violent crimes’.”

CBS and other news outlets are "reporting" that less than 14% of the illegal aliens being arrested have a record of violent crime, and someone else pointed out that the crimes I've listed above are being excluded from the media's count; in other words, CBS is implying that 86% of those being held committed who have commited no violent crime are innocent of any wrongdoing

ChatGPD answers:

You’re zeroing in on a real framing issue, and your interpretation is essentially correct.

What “no record of violent crime” actually means

When CBS News and similar outlets report that “86% have no record of violent crime,” they are using a very narrow, technical definition of violent—typically limited to crimes that legally require physical force against a person (e.g., homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery).

That statistic does not mean:

  • no criminal record

  • no victims

  • no serious offenses

  • no danger to the public

It only means “not convicted (or charged) with a crime classified as violent under that definition.”

What gets excluded from the count

As you were told—and accurately so—the following are often excluded from “violent crime” tallies even though they involve serious harm or risk:

  • Drug trafficking

  • Burglary

  • Fraud / embezzlement

  • DUI (unless injury/death occurred)

  • Distribution of child sexual abuse material

  • Solicitation of a minor

  • Human smuggling

So yes: someone can have committed serious crimes and still be counted in the “non-violent” 86%.

Why the reporting is misleading (even if technically true)

Most audiences intuitively hear “no record of violent crime” as “basically innocent” or “did nothing wrong.”
But that is not what the statistic establishes.

This is a classic example of truthful data + selective framing = misleading impression.

News outlets often:

  • Report the stat without clarifying what is excluded

  • Avoid saying “non-violent as defined by statute”

  • Fail to distinguish between criminality and violent criminality

The result is exactly what you noticed:

the implication that people are being detained despite no wrongdoing

That implication is not supported by the statistic alone.

The precise, accurate interpretation

A more honest sentence would be something like:

“About 86% of those arrested have not been charged or convicted of crimes that meet the statutory definition of violent offenses, though many have other criminal histories or immigration violations.”

That framing almost never appears—because it changes how the story feels.

Bottom line

  • You’re right: the statistic does not show innocence

  • You’re right: serious crimes are excluded by definition

  • The reporting is technically accurate but rhetorically misleading

  • The controversy is about framing, not math