To be fair, I don’t think that Jon Stewart, CNN or the reporter are bias in their reporting. For his sake, Stewart is just running a clip that makes his point and probably just missed it.
But for CNN and the reporter, their mistake is a little bit more egregious. Again, I don’t think there’s bias, rather, they think they have a story – they might well have- and they are just trying to push the numbers they have to make that story more compelling.
Watch. Hint, it’s all over by 00:35
The error was in the numbers the CNN reporter was displaying.
Here is the graphic she used:
So the numbers and the graph are:
- Correct
- Off High
The graph accurately reflects the White unemployment. The graph does NOT reflect AfricanAmerican unemployment. In fact, it shows it lower. Then again, the graph doesn’t show Hispanic unemployment correctly either, however it too shows the data as lower than the raw numbers.
Which is right?
Let’s listen:
… in the black community 14% compared to whites which is 7%. Latino community 11% compared to white’s 7%.
In the dialogue we have white unemployment at 7%. Both the data and the chart show it at 7.4% She reports that black unemployment is 14% but the data shows 13.6% and the chart shows 13%. Depending on which you believe, that’s a whole point. Next she moves to Latinos. In both comparisons she mentions 11%; consistent with the data but not the graph.
Again, I don’t think there is bias here. Jon is setting the table for his bit. But Lordy, how do we trust that these people are saying true things?
CNN’s problem, pretty much regularly, is that they just do a lousy job. And they are stuffed full of their own immportance. A few weeks ago, on their website, they ran a headline that began: “First on CNN:”. It wasn’t a kicker – it was part of the actual headline.
To be fair though, excepting local news, PBS and BBC, all TV news – network and cable – does a lousy job.
The bar graph is April 2012 (labeled under the bars). The numbers to the left are May 2012 (from the then-current report, labeled top-right).
If you round the current numbers, which the reporter is talking about, you get 7% for whites and 14% for blacks, exactly what she said.
The bar graph is April 2012 (labeled under the bars). The numbers to the left are May 2012 (from the then-current report, labeled top-right).
If you round the current numbers, which the reporter is talking about, you get 7% for whites and 14% for blacks, exactly what she said.
Man….I see it now, but that’s not the take I got from watching the clip. I certainly don’t know her mind, but I don’t get the impression that should would have been able to explain that. But even if you’re right, the labels don’t seem to be correct.
The top right lists an “Employment Report” and it looks like it’s an Un-employment report. And the larger, “Jobs By Race”, seems to be formatted like the chart is describing the data. For example, why would you display one month unemployment report in a graph and the next in the raw data?
And, not to beat a dead horse [too l ate? 🙂 ], even THAT label isn’t correct. This isn’t data that describes jobs by race, it describes unemployment by race.
And the rounding thing? By rounding the one down and the other up she generates a difference of 8/10s of a point.
Anyway, maybe I’m being too picky but I think it’s sloppy. Then again, some could argue the same about me and mine.
“The top right lists an “Employment Report” and it looks like it’s an Un-employment report. And the larger, “Jobs By Race”, seems to be formatted like the chart is describing the data. For example, why would you display one month unemployment report in a graph and the next in the raw data?”
Sure, the graph is poorly labeled. But I watched the segment once and knew what was going on. Besides, an employment report would surely include unemployment figures. Showing unemployment rates under the title “jobs” is much stupider, but we still all know what she means.
“And the rounding thing? By rounding the one down and the other up she generates a difference of 8/10s of a point.”
Sure, and if she actually wanted to hide the figures she would have rounded off the numbers on the graphic. She didn’t invent the concept of rounding or twist it to her own evil needs, she just applied it. She could have maintained a more accurate difference by simply omitting the decimal portion, but then she’d be making numbers up instead of applying a well-known and simple mathematical function.
But I watched the segment once and knew what was going on.
Fair enough. When I was watching the segment I saw numbers and I saw a graph. My mind was trying to make the two fit. Further, the numbers she’s talking about didn’t match any of the two representations.
She didn’t invent the concept of rounding or twist it to her own evil needs
I don’t think there was any intention, “evil” or not. That’s my point, there was no intentional thought and it was sloppy.
but then she’d be making numbers up instead of applying a well-known and simple mathematical function.
Watch this:
I think that whoever wrote this was trying to point out that unemployment rates for blacks is worse than for whites. And in order to make the point, they wanted to report it at “twice” the rate. So they rounded. But we don’t round those numbers.
Now, to be fair, the chances that the average American would complain about a .8 manipulation in the numbers is low. And perhaps most Americans need the shock of “double the rate” to point out the fact that it’s a harder work environment for blacks than for whites. To that extent, the extent that Americans are lazy and don’t understand math, is not the reporter’s fault.
I’m a bit miffed because I couldn’t hear the damn thing! I find Jon Stewart to be awfully funny.
I find Jon Stewart to be awfully funny.
He’s freakin’ hilarious.