What if I offered you the choice between a wage with an annual 50 percent raise and a wage with a 25 percent one? Which would you like? The first? Great, me too.
But wait. Too bad I “forgot” to tell you they assume different bases. The 50 percent raise affects an original wage of $20. The 25 percent raise affects a base of $40. In both cases, you will receive a raise of 10 extra dollars. Would you like to change your choice?
Yes, this is an exaggerated example. But it has a point: numbers can be manipulated.
In few places is this more important than in the media. Statistics in news generally evoke two responses: fear and comfort. In the first case, fear results from feeling overwhelmed with knowledge we need to digest, because numbers, math and statistics don’t lie. In the second case, numbers comfort the reader into trust, because numbers, math and statistics don’t lie. Right?
Wrong.
Numbers are great weapons, made to dissemble. Most of us are taught to believe them, and good businessmen can take advantage of that by tweaking their numbers’ representation. Using a percentage rather than a gross number can decrease the psychological effect of an increase in price. Rates can differ, skewing perception of change based on a rate per month, per year, per decade. Statistics lovers see a feast of numbers; they simply pick the one that best fits their taste and, if they are skillful, their audience will bite.
But if numbers were objective fact, controversy wouldn’t be nearly as prevalent. Politicians manipulate numbers all the time to forward their party lines. So, naturally, newspapers fall into the same trap. This is not to say newspapers purposely try to mislead; ideally, they seek the most objective picture possible. But newspapers use sources, and sources often have agendas. So, it becomes the reporter’s job to sift through the deluge of dissembling numbers and represent them as objectively and fairly as possible.
The Cavalier Daily’s articles this week offer some edifying examples.
On April 4, an article “New amendment blocks abortion health coverage” reports the approval of a bill denying Virginia insurance companies certain rights regarding abortion coverage. Yet, the article leaves out crucial numbers, statistics with a voice. Let’s examine three examples.
The first example is that of factual numbers. The vote itself was 20-19 in the Virginia Senate and 55-37 in the House. Rather shockingly, nowhere does the article report the actual vote. When it comes to representing approval, a Senate vote that close says a lot; without it, the approval might as well be unanimous. Choosing to omit the number may be an oversight, but it can skew psychological impact of the approval to appear more ubiquitous than it was.
The second example is that of interesting numbers. Two Democratic Senators joined 18 Republicans in voting for McDonnell’s bill; one Republican joined 18 Democrats in voting against it. The crossover in party votes offers a different angle for readers to consider.
Lastly, there are comparative numbers. Virginia is the 21st state to pass such an amendment since the Affordable Care Act. This one has particular value. An opinionated quote included in the article cites this bill as the “first time” the government has set such a “dangerous” precedent; a simple number like this helps to quietly maintain the objectivity of the story and restructure Virginia’s actions relative to the nation at large. A similar option involves comparison to any other state measures.
Such statistics help to contextualize an issue that, by virtue of its nature, arouses suspicion of political bias.
Another April 4 article, “Board considers tuition, fees hike” includes a laudable quantity of numbers with clear insight. Here, too, though, are areas for improvement. One paragraph compares projected tuition increases, claiming, “These increases are low in comparison to previous years.” This inclusion is valuable, but also fails to mention next year’s increases are in line with a trend started for 2012-2013, which saw a 3.7 percent increase in in-state tuition. The article understandably hopes to offer an optimistic outlook; yet, highlighting last year’s change offers a better picture of sustainable currents in University funding.
Audience demographics also affect what numbers will prove most useful in a story. For prices paid, it may be valuable to a university reader base to include gross amounts alongside these percentages. Not every reader wants to do math; knowing what the 2.9 percent increase for next year actually converts to makes the news more digestible for the tuition-paying reader.
Like all weapons, numbers must be used carefully. When simple manipulation can lead to accusations of media bias, the onus falls on the reporter to ensure their readers are receiving the most objective story possible. A cocktail of descriptive reporting, accented with thoughtful statistics, does more than either a list of numbers or a worded story can alone.
Ashley Stevenson is The Cavalier Daily’s public editor. Contact her at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com with concerns and suggestions about how The Cavalier Daily could improve its coverage.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
