How Sources, Reporters View Math Errors in News
Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 2003 by Maier, Scott R
The results suggest that reporters and sources frequently have different perceptions of how numbers should be conveyed in the press. As to be expected, the majority of disputed claims dealt with subjective views of error, but the results underscore that claims of factual numerical errors also were open to interpretation. But with the two judges siding with the reporter in the majority of their error determinations, reporter objections to error claims appear to have some merit. This finding underscores the need for journalistic numeracy: Sources sometimes misunderstand or misinterpret their own numbers, providing yet another reason why it is imperative for reporters and editors to be statistically competent.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
The disputed errors also underscore differences in public and journalistic values. It should not be surprising that the two coders, although making independent and presumably informed judgments, so often sided with the reporter. The presence of unwritten but influential ethical norms in the newspaper profession has long been recognized.46 As former reporters, the coders by training and experience could be expected to hold journalistic values similar to those found in the newsroom. For example, both coders decided that a reporter appropriately described a company's financial performance as "less than stellar." The public, however, might consider the characterization an opinion that has no place in an objective newspaper story. Further study is needed to understand the differences between what news sources see as an error of judgment but journalists and journalism educators view as the media's responsibility to give perspective to numbers in the news. Further research of this kind would benefit by including an independent coder who has math expertise but not a journalistic background.
However, the news media should not shrug off complaints of mathematical inaccuracy as matters of opinion. It is reasonable to presume that the reporters most likely to respond to requests for comment were those who felt unjustly accused of making an error; the reply form presented an opportunity for them to defend their journalistic honor. Reporters who, indeed, were in error would be less motivated to fill out the response form. Moreover, reporter opinion was not sought when a reported numerical error was either trivial or the cause of error was self-evident. So, while the judges sided with the reporter in the majority of disputed claim determinations, approximately 81 percent of all source claims of numerical error were either substantiated or unchallenged.
It is instructive that many of the causes attributed to numerical errors - i.e., carelessness, oversimplification, poor editing - are violations of basic journalistic standards. What appears to be lacking is a willingness to question numbers that don't make sense. To achieve greater proficiency in numbers, journalists need the motivation and confidence to diligently apply the traits of professionalism that most already possess. A greater understanding of statistics also is needed for data interpretation, something sources complained was missing. This is consistent with what many News & Observer reporters and editors had reported in focus groups: Their greatest challenge is putting numbers in a context that is accurate and meaningful.47