There are many ways to misuse numbers to intentionally create a false impression in the mind of the reader. Such deception is morally no different than lying, in my view, even if one carefully avoids saying anything false. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has pointed out an exceptionally egregious example from the New York Times.
The headline of the Times article is "Amid 'Trump Effect' Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants." The article states:
Cowen is too generous in the title of the post: "This one is a real blooper and I cannot let it pass by." The word "blooper" implies an innocent mistake or accident. This looks like intentional deception to me, and that appearance is reinforced by the fact that the misleading story and atrocious headline are still on the NYT website three days after this has been all over the internet. Additional commentary comes from James Freeman at the WSJ and Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.
We see similar cherry-picking in arguments about criminal justice, but this is such a clear and obvious example of the deceptive tactic that I thought it worth noting here.
The headline of the Times article is "Amid 'Trump Effect' Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants." The article states:
Nearly 40 percent of colleges are reporting overall declines in applications from international students, according to a survey of 250 college and universities, released this week by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.The actual finding of the survey is "39% of responding institutions reported a decline in international applications, 35% reported an increase, and 26% reported no change in applicant numbers." That is a complete nothingburger, but cherry-picking the first number creates a very wrong impression.
Cowen is too generous in the title of the post: "This one is a real blooper and I cannot let it pass by." The word "blooper" implies an innocent mistake or accident. This looks like intentional deception to me, and that appearance is reinforced by the fact that the misleading story and atrocious headline are still on the NYT website three days after this has been all over the internet. Additional commentary comes from James Freeman at the WSJ and Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.
We see similar cherry-picking in arguments about criminal justice, but this is such a clear and obvious example of the deceptive tactic that I thought it worth noting here.

Leave a comment