As IF Times

link More than half of Americans back Obamas Koran apology | Reuters.

When you first read this headline, the natural response is, HUH??  That is until you read further into the article and find out that sample size is a whopping 1143 people…online.  That’s not even a population size large enough to cover Sandra Fluke’s activities at Georgetown.  The average person will not figure this out.  The headline will stick with them and before you know it, the narrative is that half of the population of over 300 million people in the U.S. are supportive of Obama’s apology for the burning of someone’s religious books.   This is the same crazed logic that brought us Climate Change, (nee Global Warming) because someone thought some penguins were missing.

Reuters has not historically been a dubious news source, but when they print outright laughers like this story, it casts skepticism on all of their news stories.  It is unclear when they made the decision to move into the tabloid business.  I guess this particular headline sells more than “Insignificant sample of online geeks think Obama apology is a good idea”.   This headline is the political equivalent of a “Lindsay Lohan Goes Wild” story in the entertainment hype pages.  This so called conclusion cannot even be characterized as a leap of logic, it more closely resembles someone being fired from a cannon into the next county logic.

If statistics are to be deployed in support of some conclusion, then the authors should at least be bright enough to use some valid ones.   Or at least have more respect for the intelligence of their readers.   Interestingly enough, during the 2008 Presidential election, a convincing 96% of Black voters pulled the lever for Obama according to Politico.   This same survey showed that 54% of young white voters also voted for Obama.  To this day, many will deny that these statistics are any indication of racially influenced voting.  I suppose there’s always that 4%.  This same leap of logic is being used to characterize the Occupy Wall Street crowd as the “99%”, a narrative that some math challenged people actually buy.

We conclude then, that journalism schools do not have a mandatory introductory course on statistics as part of their curriculum.   If ‘journalists’ insist on quoting statistics to support their arguments, this should be a minimum requirement.  Otherwise, just stick to telling stories using creative writing skills.  At the very least, there should be disclaimers at the end of stories similar to what you see attached to the end of pharmaceutical commercials wherein all the possible risks are listed.  In the case of news stories, they can say something like, ” statistics quoted may or may not have any connection to the intended conclusion, they are only added to imply validity”.