Megan McArdle and Stuart Buck have an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner on the innumeracy, economic and otherwise, of many reporters:

...many conservative readers attributed the misleading figures to liberal media bias. But it is more likely ignorance than malice. Every year, scores of fledgling journalists pour out of liberal arts programs. Though many will need to pick through mountains of statistics in search of the truth, few have been taught the skills to do it.

They quickly become victims of advocacy groups pushing skewed statistics. Through ignorance, they may also start manufacturing their own flawed numbers. Since number-crunching beats (such as business and finance) are generally viewed as a tedious waystation en route to more interesting beats, few are enthusiastic about developing these skills. And their editors may not be in any position to help them.

The problem is compounded by the fact that journalists who do know how to read a balance sheet, run a regression, or analyze economic data, can generally get a job that pays a lot more than journalism. Some stay in the field out of love for their work (journalism is a really great job), but in our experience some of the best flee to greener pastures.

OK, but if they really just don't get the numbers, shouldn't they run it by a source first? Isn't that their job? Their only job?

Consumer (you and me) must hold their feet to the fire so they wouldn't dream of not using a respectable source... However, in this fictional but true world we live in, too many voices will holler for the opposite.

Here's a numeric question for ya all, how many hollering idiots does it take to make one truth?

Though many will need to pick through mountains of statistics in search of the truth, few have been taught the skills to do it.

Uh huh, and that allows them to say that the numbers of Iraqis killed by insurgents, to date, outnumbers the ones killed by Saddam and his boys. Their not statistically challenged, they're basic math challenged. Never mind truth impaired.

...few are enthusiastic about developing these skills. And their editors may not be in any position to help them.

You'd think the editors would hire somebody NOT statistics challenged to ferret out the truth, in order to report the truth. I refer you to my truth impaired statement above.

The problem is compounded by the fact that journalists who do know how to read a balance sheet, run a regression, or analyze economic data, can generally get a job that pays a lot more than journalism.

So the journalists we are supposed to believe, supposed to trust for our information, the ones hired to update or daily knowledge of the world, those scions of the Fourth Estate, are just people to dumb to get another job? Poor babies!!

I saved the best for last,

...many conservative readers attributed the misleading figures to liberal media bias.

No we, the conservative howlers of your audience, attributed the bias that we see and hear daily, not to just the miscounting of numbers. It's attributed to years of hearing the vehement, ant-conservative, anti-American, anti-religious statements made in print on line and on TV and radio.

Whether the subject is the National Debt, the collapse and rebound of the Dow-Jones Average, or the number of those poor and underprivileged, mislead, under funded, unarmored, American troops killed in an illegal war in Iraq, the MSM has the answer. Bush Sucks. That's not always a possible answer, regardless of which side your on. As the inputs to an equation change so does the inevitable answer. But with the MSM, no matter what the equation or the variables, it's alway the same answer.

2 + 2 = Bush Sucks

6 * 6 = Bush Sucks

Bush Lied / People Died = Bush Sucks

Now I'm no math major but somehow that doesn't add, subtract, divide or multiply quite right.

Ken,
it's the same as the sound of one hand clapping. Right?

It's not just math, it's -- well, it's everything. I've worked in journalism off and on for years and have a number of friends still in the business.

There are some reporters who specialize in some technical fields -- science reporters, medical reporters, space reporters, legal issues reporters, etc. They often (not always) know their stuff. Unfortunately they are rare and getting rarer.

The bulk of reporters don't know _anything_. They're ignorant of math, know nothing of statistics, have no science knowledge in any subject, are perplexed by technology, are innocent of history, have no understanding of economics, have no training in logic, can't think critically, don't know any law, have no familiarity with literature, know less about foreign countries than most tourists...

AND...

...can't spell, don't know proper grammar, can't punctuate, and misuse words with dismal regularity.

Not only are journalists ignorant of the things they are supposedly reporting to the rest of us, many exhibit profound ignorance of their own profession. The level of craft was better back when reporting was something you went into after you got sick of typesetting or unloading rolls of newsprint.

Trimegistus wrote:

The bulk of reporters don't know _anything_. They're ignorant of math, know nothing of statistics, have no science knowledge in any subject, are perplexed by technology, ...

I've been a university science writer for a decade (note: not for Oregon State in Corvallis), and I can corroborate this. It's even true of PR people for "our side" (university researchers) who have J-school educations but don't know squat about the fields that they cover. Worst of all, most of them don't even see it as a problem. So what if they get the facts wrong? "Eh. Nobody cares except a few nerds."

The other night I was watching one of the reporters on Fox reporting on the current shuttle mission.

She described it as the first space station construction flight since the loss of Discovery.

She also showed us a picture of the the space station would look like when completed.

I was amazed to see how similar in appearance the finished station and the orbiter will be.

...and I'm supposed top believe anthing these people say (not just Fox, the whole passle of them)?

> ...many conservative readers attributed the
> misleading figures to liberal media bias. But
> it is more likely ignorance than malice.

I don't buy that for a second. Anyone numerate knows that measurements contain two types of error: systematic and random error. Random error is equally likely to be high than low. Systematic error is skewed to one side.

The press overwhelmingly gets its numbers wrong in a consistent way -- the way that makes conservatives look bad. If it were random, conservatives would "win" as many mistakes as they "lose", but that doesn't seem to happen much. The press's error is systematic, not random.

We have another word for systematic error -- bias.

Mike

I recommend this page on structural biases. "Narrative bias," in particular, explains a lot. The author, BTW, is a big fan of John Allen Paulos' "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper."

I highly recommend this site for it's commentary on exactly this phenomena.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm

...and I'm supposed top believe anthing these people say (not just Fox, the whole passle of them)?

Indeed. I shouldn't have been surprised and disappointed to eventually find Fox News unwatchable, but I was. Television is television, and whatever it was that made the Big Three, and then CNN, unwatchable, was inevitably going to afflict Fox as well.