This bugs me every time I see it, which is almost daily.
Whenever any newspaper reporter puts numbers into the story they never put in enough of them to tell the whole story.
Example today:
OK, do you think that he realizes that from the numbers presented you cannot tell which show has the most viewers? Or how wide the gap is?
I don’t. I think all newspaper writers must have flunked every math and science course they ever took.
Of course, that estimate is based on my finding 50% more of these than a person who found 50 fewer.
Most of them just lack the knowledge about statistics. Editors love putting hard numbers into stories, but that doesn’t mean the people including them know what they mean.
They say repeatedly that the Tonight Show has the “lead.” It’s very clear that it has more viewers. You’re right about the rest of it, although we don’t know what information was available to the AP writer or how the percentages were calculated.
Does painting with such a broad brush hurt your wrist? Anyway, it’s true that a lot of my colleagues are numerophobic. That’s not a secret.
They wanted to make a point, but realized that if the facts were presented in the standard way it would be obvious to everybody that, in fact, more people watch Late Show.
However, by emphasizing only the change in viewership, it can be made to appear as though more people watch Tonight.
I know my journalism professors have often made comments to the effect of “I know most of you suck with numbers, but you’re stuck using them.” I don’t count myself among those who are bad with numbers, but I doubt I’ll ever be a great journalist either.
I have to wonder when reading this kind of thing just what information the journalist had to work with. I know he should have all the numbers handy, but it reads to me like he didn’t.
IAAJ, and I heartily second MLS’ recommendation. Best’s book points out some of the worst mistakes commonly made by journalists. Some who specialize in science coverage are quite reliable, and some are able to do the math, but many of us in the profession loaded up on English classes and ducked math every chance we got.
And with tight deadlines, many will not take the time to doublecheck figures quoted by activists on one side or another. “Hey, they’re not our figures. We cited them correctly,” is often the writer’s attitude.
Sigh.
We owe it to our readers to filter out - or at least challenge - flawed figures and spurious conclusions, but this happens far less than we would like.
This doesn’t make sense. It’s the AP, and if you read the article it’s clear what is happening. The headline says “Jay Leno increasing lead.” In what way could you spin that to say Letterman had more viewers?
