In his article “A Billion People Can Be Wrong,” Steve Rushin makes a great point: journalists should always be suspicious of high numerical figures reported by organizations whose best interests are vested in, well, high numerical figures. In light of the recent frenzy surrounding the Giants’ history-making win over the Patriots, the Super Bowl seems, more than ever, to be a sporting event beloved by all. It is so beloved, in fact, that a staggering one billion people watched it this year. Or did they? The NFL reports that the Super Bowl is broadcast to a potential one billion viewers in 225 countries (potentially, of course). Having the potential to do something, however, is no guarantee that it will actually be done.
Initiative, a media research firm, estimated in a study that only 93 million people watched the Super Bowl last year, with North Americans accounting for 98 percent of those viewers. This figure is grossly divergent from the one reported by several newspapers and other media outlets, because journalists allowed themselves to be spoon-fed misleading statistics by the NFL. Although, thanks to the clever use of the word “potential,” the NFL did not technically lie in its approximation of the Super Bowl audience, journalists should hone their “built-in, shock-proof b.s. detectors,” which Rushin claims most American sports fans already have, in order to avoid being hoodwinked in the future. After reading the article, I wondered how American journalists could actually believe that so many people in other countries would actually watch the Super Bowl. Part of the problem is Americans’ tendency to think solely in terms of American culture, even when referencing other countries. Why would the average Frenchman honestly be interested in watching football, a sport that is really only played in America? I don’t think many Americans tune in to watch the Cricket World Cup.
Scott R. Maier’s article “Journalists + math = anxiety, self-doubt” made me wonder why journalism schools don’t require students to take basic math classes, even before Maier raised the point. Although the level of math proficiency required for an average article containing numbers is only that of a junior high school student, journalists are still insecure about executing basic math problems. At the risk of over-simplifying the issue, I think this is because journalists, like so many other professionals in various fields of work, convince themselves that they are only good at one thing. I know engineering students who are math-dynamos, yet have convinced themselves that they can’t write the most basic papers or briefs of projects, just as so many journalism students claim the only thing they know how to do is write.
Maier is right that providing journalists with basic-math education is the first and best way to remedy the rampant fear of numbers prevalent in journalism today; however, I also think that this problem largely stems from insecurity among journalists who can’t seem to fully embrace the The-Little-Engine-That-Could mindset. Although I enjoy the “No one in this class can add or subtract because we’re a bunch of journalism majors” joke as much as the next person, it is really more embarrassing than anything else, because everyone seems to believe that it’s true. The reality is that if we all sat there for just a few moments and thought about how to solve the math problems in front of us, rather than about new jokes to crack about how bad at math we all are, we would probably be successful. No one is going to come in and, calculator in hand, whip up percentages for us, no matter how long we stall for time.
Journalists also need to know how to do math so that they can protect readers from suspicious assertions such as the one-billion-Super-Bowl-viewers claim made by the NFL. If a journalist can’t make a percentage difference out of two numbers, he probably doesn’t think critically about numbers at all – to the point that he might not be wary of the claim that one billion people worldwide watch a purely-American sporting event. As Rushin pointed out in his article, several newspapers claimed the Super Bowl would be watched by one billion people, even though the population of America is less than a third of that figure.
“Frank Fee’s Tips for Accuracy” reinforced ideas presented in both of the above articles. Although he covers many aspects of ensuring accuracy in writing, such as taking all questions into consideration, checking maps and re-checking facts with sources, Fee makes three basic assertions about math in journalism which relate to the previous readings.
The first point, “Don’t rely on another person’s figures,” is made clearly in Rushin’s column about the NFL’s Super Bowl viewing assertions. Media outlets trusted the NFL’s one-billion-viewers-worldwide claim without questioning. If they had just thought about the enormity of one billion people, and then thought about the impossibility of so many international fans for a sport that is really only played in the U.S., the rest would have followed.
Fee’s second point, “Remember that ‘officials’ and ‘experts’ may be just as bad at math as journalists,” is addressed in Rushin’s article as well, because NFL representatives purposefully used misleading wording to push a claim that was actually all but impossible; although this was less an issue of officials being bad at math than it was a marketing ploy, it would have served journalists well to have thought critically about the claim rather than allow the NFL to distort reality through their newspapers.
Scott Maier’s article addresses Fee’s third point: “Don’t be too proud or busy to consult a math text or math guide–and have one available.” Maier is an advocate of mathematical instruction for journalism students and journalists. If every journalist had a math book to reference for help with percentages or ratios, articles would probably be better written and more accurate.
The case study article we read in class had an important message about crime rates in Gainesville, but I’m not sure what it was. It was riddled not only with numerical inaccuracies but, simply, with a plethora of numbers that, in some cases, were unnecessary. It was an eye-opener about the dangers of not breaking down numerical data for readers. That is not to say that readers are stupid or can’t comprehend numbers, because they aren’t, and they can – but it is obvious when reading an article such as the one we read in class that the journalist himself doesn’t even understand what he’s written. Not only were the percentages cited in the article incorrect (as could be determined by calculating the percentages off of the table of information), but there were simply too many numbers in each sentence. There is just something about having more than one or two numbers in a sentence that makes my head hurt, and I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that way.
Writing an article chock-full of statistics doesn’t show a comprehensive study or deep understanding of an issue – it shows the exact opposite. A journalist’s inability to break-down complicated information shows nothing more than his own ineptitude and/or laziness, and results in readers giving up on the article before they’ve reached the third sentence. The article is a concrete example of the problem with numbers that so many journalists admit to having, and it reinforces Scott Maier’s assertion that all journalists should be well-trained in practical mathematics so that they can better (and more accurately) relay messages to readers.
