Abstract #4
The first article I read was “Math for journalists.” I found it to be a useful read, if a little boring. It seems to be more of a reference to be looked back upon when dealing with percentages and related statistics. However, I do feel that the author brought up some good points when relating math and words. It’s true that as journalists we look at each word, phrase or paragraph with intense scrutiny but often overlook the mathematical part. Perhaps this is because of a fear of numbers, laziness or something else. But it made me think: As journalists we are called to pay attention to all details, whether they be words, grammar, style, tone, connotation, spelling, pictures or numbers. This is something that I feel we too often forget. I have to admit that the sight of math in a story does cause me to get a little bent out of shape. Maybe it’s because it brings back flashbacks of my old major in computer science. I’ve been through calculus 1, 2, 3 and two courses past that, but when I have to calculate something like a percent difference I get a little lazy-math is something that I went into journalism to avoid. But the fact is that it’s unavoidable and is something that needs to be paid attention to.
The second article I read was “Twenty questions a journalist should ask about poll results.” I also found this to be a good read, if a little long. I think the thing I appreciate most about these assigned readings is that they bring up important points that we often overlook or take for granted and help develop our critical thinking skills. I have never put so much thought into polls as I have after reading this article. There is a lot of information to go over here but I think the theme is what’s most important: to question poll results that have become ubiquitous in the media. We always see the neat little graphs, pie charts or other graphics that are supposed to show what the entire country of 300+ million is thinking. However, to have even a semblance of accuracy when dealing with such numbers requires painstaking attention to detail and a reputable, scientific company doing the polling.
The final article I chose this week was “655,000 dead” on the Media Matters site. I think the main point I gleaned from this article was that numbers can have a jarring effect on the public, especially large ones such as this. It’s easy to spout such numbers, air them on specials or print them in bold headlines but what is often overlooked, yet again, is any question or follow up on such a claim. Claiming that so many people have been killed without being as sure as possible can make a huge political statement lack the weight it needs to cause people to pause on the issue and actually care. The author makes a valid point in that perhaps we should care more about what is happening overseas and how many innocent people are dying for no reason. When single-digit numbers of American soldiers are killed, that typically makes headlines but when a family and all its members are killed in a mistaken airstrike, people hardly pause to think about the sorrow and pain that is left in the wake.
Case study
As I mentioned above, numbers in a story can be a source of constant headaches for journalists who are unaccustomed to dealing with much else than words. I think this is the primary reason why an article with bad math and sensational statements actually made it into print. It’s easy for us to sit here and read the article knowing we are looking for mathematical errors, but perhaps on a strict deadline an editor might not be on our same wavelength. It’s understandable how it could happen but definitely not excusable. Basic mathematical calculations are something that all journalists should be comfortable with because in the end it can make the paper look stupid and damage its credibility. It’s easy to toss around crime statistics but sometimes I think it somewhat panders to an audience that is all-to-ready to freak out about increases in crime. To have the math wrong on top of that only exacerbates an existing problem.
Leave a Reply