(After seeing this correction on my Web site, a reader e-mailed to say the paper actually means “squared” when it says “doubled.”) That’s a mathematical error, but this week also saw The New York Times provide an example of a simple numerical error:
An article on Nov. 1 about libraries with rare-book collections open to the public misstated the period of time covered by Oscar Wilde’s college notebook, at the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library in Los Angeles. It was written during 1876 and 1878, not 1876 and 1978. And because of an editing error, the article rendered incorrectly part of the Latin title of Galileo’s “Starry Messenger,” at the Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology in Kansas City, Mo. It is “Sidereus Nuncius,” not “Sidereus Nucius.”
Yes, amusing stuff. But the core issue here is learning to prevent these mistakes. We have to lay waste to the idea that it’s okay for journalists to suck at math. One reason is that this attitude makes journalists feel as though they can’t challenge the statistics contained in a press release. We’re not a fancy retweeting service for companies and governments—our role is to verify information. The other reason to shed the idea that journalism and math don’t mix is that it may, in fact, be completely false.
In 2003, Maier published an article about journalists and math in the Newspaper Research Journal. As part of his research, he gave a math test to reporters at the Raleigh News & Observer. When I interviewed him for my book, Maier told me that, despite the “profound feelings of mathematical inadequacy” professed by the editors and writers, most of them did fairly well. As Maier noted, “strong performers in math outnumbered the weak performers.” Yet nearly all of them were afraid of taking the test, and most expected to do horribly. It’s an admittedly small sample size, but it sends the clear message that journalists need to stop beating themselves up about math.
Fortunately, journalists can easily acquire the math skills necessary to properly do their job. There are some excellent, free online guides for journalists. This online presentation from CubReporters.orgprovides a solid overview of percentages, crowd counts, and means and medians, among other information. The great writing and reporting instructor Jack Hart also has several pages of excellent numeracy advice available online here. It’s a fantastic resource. Finally, Robert Niles has a page dedicated to math for journalists.
There are also a few books written specifically for journalists. The gold standard has for a long time been News and Numbers: A Guide to Reporting Statistical Claims and Controversies in Health and Other Fields. You should also look at Math Tools for Journalists and Numbers in the Newsroom: Using Math and Statistics in News.
Ah, but what of that remark about journalists, mathematicians, and geishas? Here’s the full correction, for your enjoyment (and calculation):
E=mc3+1: As mathematicians, journalists make fine geishas. One of the paper’s most perspicacious readers has again successfully challenged our careless checking of figures in reports received from overseas and interstate. In one report we had an Olympic swimming pool holding a meagre 1000 megalitres – a waist-high depth that would becalm Eamon Sullivan (‘Angel’, 4, drowns as plastic dam wall fails, page 17, November 25). And in another report we had 40,000 US “gleaners” filling 80,000 4-6kg sacks with 250kg of vegetables – a minuscule 6g per person (Hard times bite in America, World page 28, November 26). We still don’t know what we meant.
Correction of the Week
“ON 18 September 2009, we published an article in which Warren Furman, also known as the Gladiator “Ace”, was reported as denying “internet rumours” that he had raped Jordan. In doing so, the article implied that these “rumours” were sufficiently serious to require a response from Mr Furman.
“In fact the “internet rumours” consisted of very few ambiguous posts on an internet chat forum.
Great piece, Ryan. I've actually gotten a little better at math during 20+ years as a reporter, but that didn't stop me from making a $60 million error last month in a pension story.
The horrible part? Almost no one noticed.
#1 Posted by edward ericson, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 09:03 AM
er, make that "Great piece, Craig."
Bad at reading bylines too.
#2 Posted by edward ericson, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 09:18 AM
Fairly elementary math skills are especially important in environmental and health care coverage. Global warming projections are usually based on computer models relying on mathematical programming assumptions. Elizabeth Kolbert of the fact-checking-famed New Yorker mangled some math in a 2007 profile of Amory Lovins, as I recall. I'd say it was a sign of the decline of that esteemed publication, but I remember a similar case back in the Shawn era when Richard Barnet showed a similar deficiency in a piece on what is now called globalization. I spotted it, and I was only a student at the time.
One problem is that math is more than just adding, subtracting, etc. A few years ago during the anti-tobacco hysteria, journalists were parroting self-interested lawyers in asserting that smoking costs the public extra in health expenditures. (Similar arguments were made about motorcycle helmet laws and other nanny-state crusades.) The conceptual flaw in these arguments is that everyone eventually dies, and the cost of taking care of an elderly person who has lived a healthy life to 79 can be - usually is - in excess of the cost of attending a lung cancer victim who dies at 59. This is an example of the 'hidden' mathematics of a lot of the current debate.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:46 PM
The most egregious numbers mistake most all journalist make is to accept without question almost any number handed out by a government entity. This mistake is most commonly seen at the local TV News level. Case in point is the claim that "47 million Americans" are uninsured. Almost as soon as the statistic hit the news, blogs and posts and pundits around the country were refuting , on the internet, the figure successfully. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, and others, all fell for the line, which was the major selling point for so-called "reform." They applied no critical thinking to the claim, no questioning of who these uninsured folks are and why they have no insurance. It was as though the media had a stake in "reform" legislation's passage into law. Now, the media are willing to accept the claim that reform will only cover 31 million of the 47 million, leaving 16 million out in the cold. They don't even question the 31 million, and apparently cannot subtract 31 from 47 and ask who and why the 16 million are being left out! They give more coverage to 500 deaths because of swine flu. And, we wonder why the media, national and local, have little credibility with the American news consumer.
#4 Posted by Dougmatt, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 06:31 PM
@Dougmatt: Absolutely correct. Even when Obama switched to the 30 million number there wasn't a peep from the MSM.
I guess they were too busy fact-checking Sarah Palin.
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 09:35 PM
I love the way the media talks about healthcare costs in terms of 10 years (1 trillion dollars) and talks about military budgets in terms of yearly costs (600 billion dollars). You ask a lot of people which will cost more, military or healthcare and they will say "well healthcare costs a trillion."
But it doesn't. It costs 100 billion in the same terms that you'd use to describe military.
You find this kind of funny business on other issues such as social security, which people say is in dire straits because it's out of money in 2039. Action could be taken in those intervening years like what Reagan did (raising payroll taxes) or what should be done (eliminating the payroll tax cap so that upper income earners pay the same rate into the system that they benefited from as everyone else) but what is argued is that David Walker's hyperventilations that "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! FISCAL APOCALYPSE! END TIMES! END TIMES!" Meanwhile, medicare and medicaid are going to be exhausted in 2019.
That's a decade away.
In an industry who's costs are growing at about 2% above inflation.
In a country in which health care coverage is tied to their employment. And during a prolonged recession people lose their employment.
A country in which employers are skimping on their health care obligations because they can't afford to chip in for the rising costs of their employees coverage while competing with countries like Canada and Japan, who've socialized that cost, and Mexico and China, who don't have that cost at all.
You ask people which is in more dire straits and they will likely say social security.
People don't look at the math, they look at the narrative. Reporters who write the narrative without understanding the math end up writing some very strange things.
And this causes the audience to have a funhouse view of the world, in which thin is fat, up is down, and people don't have a clue of how things really are.
And then they are asked on a poll "Is the environment important?" and they answer "Well, maybe. But social security is about to collapse and health care reform is going to cost a trillion dollars and hells bells we're spending too much and death panels and..."
This is why the numbers are so important and one must be sure to get them right, because the numbers, if they are right, don't lie. You can invent a thousand stories to explain a data point or two, but if you have enough numbers, they don't lie.
I just wish I could say the same for people.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 11:33 PM
yes, I did turn to jornalism because I sucked at maths but surprisingly since undergrad college, I've become more and more interested and aware of it. Now, as a student at Asian College of Journalism in Chennai, I understand why they have a paper here called 'News and Numbers'.
#7 Posted by vipul viek, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 04:58 AM
Re the mythological '47 million Americans' figure repeated mindlessly by so many MSM employees . . . A. J. Liebling once did an amusing piece on the way the numbers jumped around in news stories on how many soldiers could be used in the Korean War if Chiang Kai-shek were 'unleashed'. Liebling's real target was conservative politicians, and he was making light of their overselling of the difference Taiwanese troops could make in that conflict. The lazy use of assorted numbers for those without medical insurance similarly reflects the agenda of those pushing from greater political intervention in health care, and those trying to bring attention to this laziness are playing Liebling's role. Sometimes truth does emerge from partisan conflict, which is why I think the emergence of potent right-wing news sources is a good thing for consumers. In earlier times, the '47 million' figure would have gone completely unchallenged or clarified.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 12:44 PM