I get what you mean completely — it is frustrating when media toss out numbers that look informative but don’t actually tell us anything meaningful. Those examples from the BBC show exactly that problem. Each statistic might sound impressive on its own, but none of them actually connect in a way that proves the point the writer is trying to make.
Saying coffee was 80% of Colombia’s exports in the 1950s doesn’t tell us anything about production compared to Vietnam or Brazil today. And comparing raw production numbers doesn’t tell us whether coffee remains a major part of Colombia’s export economy. They’re mixing proportions with absolute quantities, and that leads to conclusions that might not even be supported by the data.
Honestly, I’m not sure what’s worse either:
– the possibility that the journalist didn’t realize the numbers don’t line up,
– that they assumed readers wouldn’t catch it,
– or that they might be correct about many readers not noticing.
Either way, it highlights how important it is to question data presentation — especially when it’s used to shape a narrative. Misleading numbers can sound authoritative even when they’re saying nothing at all. Visit: phillyfoundationrepair.com