Numbers in context
Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 08:36AM The June 14 article “Despite promised reforms cops kill nearly 1,000 a year” says that experts are “confounded” that the number of people killed by police doesn’t vary much year-to-year. One possible explanation is that most of the killings are justified. Training police in de-escalation tactics can help in certain situations, but, if someone is armed and endangering someone else’s life, the use of force is justified. That is the case with most of the people killed by police.
The story doesn’t bother to mention that only 55 of the 1,003 people killed by police in 2019 were unarmed! That information is readily available on the Washington Post’s website on police killings. I cannot understand why an article written by Washington Post reporters would fail to mention this critical piece of information. Letter to the editor, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 21, 2020
Most rational people like quantitative arguments when deciding where to stand on an issue. Or how much attention to pay to it. But numbers are tricky things. Depending on whether you are talking about mosquitoes at your campsite or the number of dollars you earn each year, the quantity 10,000 can seem very large or very small.
That's why context is critical when discussing numbers in the news. I believe this is true whether one is conservative or liberal, so long as one like fact-based discussions.
I've preached context in reporting for a long time. As a school library supervisor, I asked for and received annual reports from each library. I learned quickly that reporting an annual circulation of, say, 15,000 books was meaningless unless there was a per pupil context. And the number was even more meaningful if it could be shown the circulation was up or down from the previous year. Or how the number compared to the average circulation of other schools. Or how targeted populations (struggling readers) compared to other groups. 15,000 could be very, very good or very, very bad - all depending on the context.
As of the middle of June 2020, 105,000 people died of complications from the coronavirus. A staggeringly large number - the equivalent of 600 commercial airline crashes! (105,000 / 175). Wow - that's 4.3 crashes per day.
But if one places that number in the context of total number of deaths during the same time period, it is less than 1% of all U.S. deaths. (105,000 / 1,174,000 = .089). The seriousness of the pandemic, at least for me, takes on a slightly less ominous hue when placed in this context. (Please see comment below about my lack of math skills - the context changes when you consider this is nearly 10% of all deaths!)
Source https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
One startling figure I always wonder about is the number of acres of deforestation each year in the Amazon basin. CNN reports that 3769 square miles were lost from Brazil in the year preceding July 2019. But the article doesn't mention percentages of total. Is this 50% of the rainforest? 20%? 5%? 1%?
According to Wikipedia, the total Amazon basin is 2,100,000 square miles, of which 60% lies within Brazil's borders - 1,260,000 sq mi. So, 3769 / 1,260,000 = 3/10th's of 1% of the total area. Really? I think of myself as an environmentalist, but I have to ponder whether this is a very high price to pay for the farming, grazing, lumbering that allows people to make a living.
The media likes to get one's attention and the more dramatic a story, the more attention ensues. And more eyes on advertisements. Next time you read a shocking statistic, even in the mainstream media, ask yourself if you have enough context for which you can form an opinion.
Glad to get that off my chest. Happy to hear different opinions.
