Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

It amuses me when journalists, pundits and the like say that blogging will replace journalism. It reminds me of the song “video killed the radio star”. Yes that was back when MTV actually played music videos. Don’t get me wrong, I love some of their shows, but where’s the beef music? Besides, radio is alive and doing as well as any other media. Would you buy a car that doesn't have a radio? The problem the mainstream media is facing is a result of their success. If you try to please all of the people, you can get good ratings, which means more ad money. I assume that’s why Cable News Network has become Celebrity News Network. It’s also why I no longer watch it.

The reason many people turn to the Internet for news is that they can choose from a wider variety and depth of coverage. On the Internet a story can link to other resources and commentary. This is good for media companies, if they have the one thing that should make or break any news provider, good journalism. Too often we see hype instead of journalism. Leave the hype to the marketing and ad people.

The result of hype being presented as journalism often leads to commentary that is more informative than the article. A good example, and the inspiration for this post, is a recent Fark.com thread. The article throws out a seemingly shocking statistic, but does very little to back it up from a statistical standpoint. About the only thing the article convinced me of is that the author either was trying to hype his own views or doesn’t understand statistics. However, the commentary actually presented information and resources about topic the “journalist” was hyping.

Why believe me, read the story and the commentary yourself.