Misleading Use of Statistics

Misleading Use of Statistics The use of statistics by the media can sometimes mislead the readers. Consider the media's reporting of crime rates. The statistics they issue are manipulated such that a bias emerges dependent on the event being highlighted. Take for example Alexandra Mark's article "U.S. Crime Rate Up, Ending Decade of Decline" in The Christian Science Monitor; the author has compared the crime rate of the year 2002 to the previous decades.

Although most of the statistics used in the article are accurate a few lines analyzing the statistics cause the reader to be misled creating a psychological motivation to read on. Factually crime rates have decreased significantly and according to the statistics released by the Justice Department they will continue to decrease. However, the author has made the statement that the rime rate has increased "for the first time in a decade" [Marks, 2002].

The author does not cite the year of the statistics released, leaving the reader to assume that the issue at hand is current for the year 2002. However, so far the Justice Department has not released the statistics for the year 2002 proving the writers inaccuracy in interpreting the statistical information. Similarly, if we consider the crime rate for the years 2000 and 2001 as presented by the Justice Department, then the rate has decreased "all over the country" instead of going up.

The reason behind the author's making such a statement and citing officials like the FBI is made clear as one reads the article for it seems that the author planned to point out to the readers the inadequacy of policing efforts made by the government in securing New York City. To make an effective point that would give the article more accuracy and legitimacy the writer manipulated the statistical facts and presented them in a manner that would mislead the audience. Though the writer may have.