The Misleading and Made-up World of Numbers

How many times have we read a print or online publication only to re-read their numbers/figures? It happens quite often. Sometimes screwy numbers are just typos; forgive and forget. But sometimes numbers are deceiving and/or confusing.

'Media mistakes' blog Regret the Error has compiled some of these typos and deceiving numbers. Some are clearly typing errors, like the one about the cost of one of the WTC towers; two zeros were missing in that figure. A big mistake, but mistakes happen. Others are just plain wrong as in a NY Times article that put the Small Business Administration's loan contribution to Hurricane Katrina victims at $336 million when it was in fact $842 million. Obviously, that's a big difference, but a correction was eventually appended the next day.

There are times when getting concrete numbers is just plain difficult. Body counts are always hard to come up with, though. This is probably especially so in unconventional wars. Genocidal maniacs don't always want or think to keep count... well, unless you're a German, mustachioed genocidal maniac.

Some figures just aren't put into proper perspective, as Michael Mandel, BusinessWeek's chief economist pointed out:

A simple calculation (explained below) shows that each baby’s share of future output is roughly about $1.7 million.

Average baby’s share of future output=$1.7 million
Average “birth tax” (according to Kristof)= $150,000

Doesn’t look quite so scary, does it?

Mandel goes on to explain, don't worry. Most of it is over my head (boy am I glad I finished up my Econ requirements semesters ago...), but it's all there.

Wednesday's (Sept. 24) Daily Illini article on smoking had some numbers that were out of context. It states the current smoking rate among college-aged kids is 19.2%. Now, what is a college-aged kid? I'd assume it to be 18-22, but I never seen that explicitly written. Also, it might be helpful to detail how many college students there are, even if just at the University of Illinois. That way the reader can better relate to the figure (e.g. "Wow. According to these numbers, it would be normal to think 2 out of 20 of my friends smoke cigarettes..."). I'm not sure if we discussed that figure in class or not. I apologize if we did. Something tells me we did. Well, either way, it's still something worth addressing.

Here's two more sites worth reading in regards to journalistic ethics and numbers:
One from Poynter
One from some blog

Toodles.