Absolute vs Relative Numbers in the News Reporting
The coronavirus pandemic is clearly shaking everything up. And I’m hoping — or maybe just imagining — that it’s also created circumstances in which everyone is somehow more open to new ideas… or maybe it’s merely the case that the protective shield around all our defenses, and ideas, and normalities has been stripped off like a turtle instantly losing its shell. We are naked, exposed, vulnerable… and maybe more open to that most threatening of all monsters…
One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea.
— Walter Bagehot.
And so, here is my new idea. Would the press and the media, in all its wondrous forms please grow up and learn about the difference between meaningless, sensationalistic, “absolute” numbers… and their alternative, “relative” numbers and information? Pretty please?
My concern for this matter started long before Mother Nature said to humanity “Seven billion people… really? Please reconsider. Let me send you a little help in adjusting your population to a more reasonable number that you and the polar bears and the kangaroos can all agree on. His name is coronavirus. Think of him as a life coach.”
Let’s start with a B.C. (before corona) example: the stock market reporting. For years the stock market was on a roll, with the main index reaching about 30,000. And when it would drop on a particularly bad — but not disastrous — day, even the most responsible media outlets couldn’t help but fixate on only the absolute number… “the Dow dropped 600 points today,” oh horrors. Well, that’s 2 percent… 2 parts in 100 for those who need to be told. In almost any other financial venue, 2 percent is not extreme or newsworthy or troubling. But “600 points,” that’s NEWS; stop the presses, alert the National Guard. I’ve repeatedly heard a 2-percent drop described with the word ‘plummet.’ In the old stock market, the one that invested in authentic value, 2 percent might have been significant. In today’s micro-second, automated trading, auction house for insider trading, 2 percent is just routine business. I once contacted our local radio station complaining about this and was given the usual, boilerplate, automaton, numb-brained response, “that’s what the stock people think… points.”
That’s not good enough. It’s no longer just the playground of the vulture capitalists being dumbed-down; it’s now our lives. Absolute numbers are for idiots. If you don’t have something to compare them too, you know close to nothing. It might be news, but it isn’t reporting. If that’s the only level of ‘reporting’ that the media can supply, then exactly how is it any better than the algorithms that will assuredly replace human reporters? In fact, stop just ‘reporting’ and start providing information… meaningful information.
Here are some examples of how to break this pattern.
Whenever the number of lives lost to coronavirus is reported — the absolute number — also show the corresponding number of seasonal influenza deaths, the relative number. If you feel that’s an unfair comparison (because seasonal flu is relatively controlled) that’s great… explain that difference.
Whenever the number of lives lost to coronavirus is reported, report the relative information about the ages, namely the median (not average) age. Yes, we’re learning that it’s NOT as exclusively attacking the elderly as first publicized, but I suspect that median age will still be high.
Show what percentage of influenza patients need hospitalization; need a ventilator; die… vs. coronavirus.
