Group items tagged

A headline in The New York Times today reads "In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda." Is it true? The story itself provides hints that the headline is misleading, and likely to damage the image of the SNAP program and its beneficiaries. This is dangerous, considering that many readers look at clickbaity headlines, like the NYTimes one, but don't read stories. SNAP households aren't different than the rest of households. Most Americans buy and drink way too much soda and, as a result, obesity and Type II diabetes have reached epidemic levels. The story says that households that receive food stamps spend 9.3% of their grocery budget on soft drinks, while families in general spend 7.1%. This is one of those cases when reporting just percentages, and not taking into account other variables, such as total spending in groceries, sounds fishy.

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's a matter of fact. We don't know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won't be good news.Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors' Code of Practice - which IPSO says it upholds - requires the "highest professional standards". This includes taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. In addition, a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by "evidence". If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that's an increase, right?

We all do it in journalism. We are taught to write a headline that a) captures what the story is about, and b) captures the reader's attention. Nothing wrong with that. Where the problem comes in is if the headline misleads or misinforms. And, as is so often the case with healthcare topics, that sort of disconnect has the potential to do more harm than good.

almost all the stories I looked at emphasized that "1 in 10 pregnant women" with Zika gave birth to babies with birth defects.But how many actual women does the "1 in 10" figure represent? How many actual babies with birth defects?You have to wade far down into all of these stories to find the numbers, whereas NPR puts them right in its headline:51 Babies Born With Zika-Related Birth Defects In The U.S. Last YearThe fact that 1 in 10 women with Zika have babies with birth defects is accurate but not nearly as informative as it could be.And when communicating to a general audience, it's misleading to the point of scaremongering to make the "1 in 10" headline the take-home message from the study.

"we pushed back against a misleading news release from Yale University that ran with the headline, "Yale researchers discover underlying cause of myeloma." The release claimed that the researchers identified "what causes a third of all myelomas," describing a faulty immune system response to compounds known as lysolipids as the culprit. But that characterization was wrong. First off, the research only demonstrated an association between lysolipids and this cancer - they didn't prove that one caused the other. And far from applying to a third of myeloma patients, the findings applied only to a tiny group of patients "

Some great quotes in this piece! The language of politics warps our democracy again and again, as in this tax calculation. The media must unpack statistics Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation published a report on funding for health and social care. One figure from the report was repeated across the headlines. For the NHS to stay afloat, it would require "£2,000 in tax from every household". Shocking stuff!If you're sitting at a bar with a group of friends and Bill Gates walks in, the average wealth of everyone in the room makes you all millionaires. But if you try to buy the most expensive bottle of champagne in the place, your debit card will still be declined. The issue to be addressed, and one to which there is no fully correct answer, is how we can put numbers into a context that enables people to make informed choices. Big numbers are hard to conceptualise - most of us have no intuitive understanding of what £56bn even looks like.