Following up on my hypnotic lecture on reporting with numbers, I’ve got a couple of pieces for you to read.
The first one is from todays New York Times. If you remember, the topic came up in class Wednesday when we were discussing Sara’s presentation about Ted Conover. Read the story and comment about how Adam Liptak used the numbers. Is it confusing? Enlightening? Do you think he presents the numbers fairly? Completely? Then follow the link to the original report (on the left hand side under the info graphic) and find another number or combination of numbers and tell me how you’d present that information.
The second story is from the LA Times. I really like this story. It’s much less numbers driven than the first but it still uses a lot of figures to underpin the impact of the story. The other reason I like it is that it’s a business section story with a really human angle. And I’d never heard of the subject before so of course I’m intrigued.
So read this and comment on how the writer uses the numbers – too much, not enough? Are the sums he writes about no big deal? For a little extra, tell me how you think the journalist handled the subject matter? Is he fair? Or do you detect a bias?
Have fun. Steve
14 responses so far ↓
Eric Van Dril // March 1, 2008 at 1:23 am
For the NY Times article, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the numbers are confusing. But, in the second paragraph, there is five statistics in a row, which was a bit overwhelming.
But, with that being said, this is the fashion in which most of the report is writen. I guess if you’re writing about a topic like a report being released, a lot of numbers should be expected throughout the report.
I do indeed think that Liptak presents the numbers fairly and completely. I specifically like how he pointed out the differences between minorities and caucassions at different ages, which added a great deal of impact to the story.
A number that I would add would be the large increases in prison population in Iowa, New Hampshire and Kentucky. I would investigate how much of each state’s budget goes to support the state’s prison expenses. In addition to this I would look at the crimes of the majority of prisoners in those states.
For the LA Times article, I thought Lifsher did an excellent job incorporating the numbers into the larger picture of his story.
In terms of the sums he writes about, I think that they were impactful, but not as much as some of the figures in the NY Times article. I especially thought that Ms. Mannheim signing her death benefits over for $200,000 in the second paragraph did a good job inticing the reader to read on.
I think the journalist was fair and handled the subject matter with grace. He seemed to do a good job at providing the facts, and then each side of the argument as well. So, I didn’t detect a bias from the journalist. On the other hand, I was biased from the second paragraph on, so I could be wrong.
John Brenner // March 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I thought that when you write a story using numbers and figures, that you try to break them up throughout the article. In this story this was not done at all. There were a lot of numbers grouped together that could get confusing to the reader. It could also make them not want to continue reading the article. I think some of the statistics could have been presented better with charts and graphs, so the reader didn’t have to take it all in while reading. The numbers were presented clearly, but I think there were just too many for a reader to digest at one time. In the link with the story, I would have taken the top three states in growth (Kentucky/Iowa/New Hampshire) and broken down why their percentage growth was the highest.
John Brenner // March 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm
In the LA Times story the number that stood out was the $200,00 she would collect from investors. As soon as the reader saw this, they would want to know how to be able to get this type of money. That figure alone sparks an interest for reading the article. The picture of Ms. Mannheim gave the story a personal touch that didn’t make the article statistically driven. I thought there was something missing in the article, titled Treating Death as a Commodity. How many people that don’t work on Wall St. and read the story even know what a commodity is? That wasn’t explained. I didn’t see a bias by the author since Ms. Mannheim’s story and the problems with the issue were both presented.
Sara Jones // March 1, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I thought the NY Times article was very overwhelming with all the numbers that it had jammed into it. Maybe it would have helped if they would have made a list of bulleted statistics and put it to the side, so that the rest of the story could have flowed better. I also agree that the states with growth (Iowa, New Hampshire, Kentucky) should have been included.
I think the LA Times article worked a lot better because there weren’t as many numbers and it wasn’t so hard to read. I also thought the author did a good job writing about this subject, because it could have sounded really insensitive if he had done it differently. I didn’t really see any bias here.
Shane Ersland // March 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
There are alot of numbers in the NY Times article, but they are necessary to get the journalist’s point across. I thought he displayed the information in a useful and intelligent manner. I thought it was an interesting article, particularly the part comparing the minorities. I would like to know more about the increase in Iowa’s prison population. I would guess it has to do with people migrating here from bigger cities.
Shane Ersland // March 1, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I didn’t see a bias in the second article, but I did feel like we could have gotten more information from the journalist. I would have liked to have known some details regarding one or more of the lawsuits. Who was involved? What circumstances brought the lawsuit forth? We know that there is a possibility for corruption here, but there wasn’t anything concrete explaining what could happen as far as that is concerned.
Haley Metcalf // March 1, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The first four paragraphs of the NY Times article had numbers and figures in them, which was a little confusing. I thought that the author could have spread out the information instead of grouping a lot at the beginning. As a reader, I would probably skim over that part and not get the message trying to be conveyed.
Also, I think he could have done a better job explaining that there are 229,786,080 adult Americans, of which 2,319,258 are incarcerated. When you divide the adult population by those in jail or prison, the results are 1 in every 99 American adults are imprisoned.
Haley Metcalf // March 1, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The story about life insurance investing is very interesting. I think that the author was fairly neutral, giving critics’ opinions and the opinion of an elderly woman who benefits from having people invest in her life insurance policy. The numbers used in this story were important, such as the amount of insurance policies and the amount those who invest in others’ policies may recieve. I wish that the author explained a little more about how the process works.
Lindsey Smith // March 2, 2008 at 6:28 pm
The “1 in how many” statistics in the NY Times piece are effective at illuminating the gravity of the situation. The numbers on how much each state spends and how that spending has increased are interesting but become overwhelming and dull after a while.
In the original Pew report, the graphs and charts were more effective than just giving the stats. The visualization of the numbers is important. I would have used the people icons like they do (1 in 9 black males for example as opposed to 1 in 355 white women- wow).
Regarding the life-insurance piece, the numbers are not overwhelming. They clarify how much money is actually being dealt with and changing hands. The writer does seem biased. He focuses on the scam side maybe a little too much, which perhaps underplays the positive aspect. I would have interviewed more seniors who were helped by this but I also would have tried to interview the investors/people who loan the money so the seniors can buy the policies.
Sarah Raaii // March 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm
While Liptak’s article addresses a Pew Center report constructed around numbers, he could have put more effort into making the piece appealing to readers. If I were in a rush and trying to get the gist of the article, I might read the first few paragraphs, and then scan the lower part, which is jammed full of statistics. I think considerably fewer people probably read the entire article because there are several paragraphs in a row (paragraphs 12 and 13 especially) in which numbers and statistics are cited. Although they’re valuable and tell a story, Liptak should strive to separate the numbers and distribute analysis of the numbers more evenly throughout the article. From an objective standpoint, Liptak’s article is well written and provides differing perspectives.
California spends $8.8 billion on its corrections system. This information would be most useful as a side-by-side comparison to the state that spends the least or the average state spending. The accompanying numbers would provide context for the large figure.
Lifsher’s LA Times article was an excellent example of how useful numbers can be if used correctly. Lifsher infused his article with numbers, concentrating on the industry’s figures in the first few paragraphs to build interest and emphasize just how significant the topic is becoming. He did not load the rest of his paragraphs down with heavy numbers to make his article into a glorified list of statistics.
Lifsher was so successful that I found myself switching sides throughout the article. On the one hand, Lifsher begins his piece with a profile (which really emphasizes and humanizes his point) of a woman who swears by selling her life insurance policy to third-party investors. Throughout his article, however, he weaves in opposing viewpoints and at the end I could not tell which side he would have taken, or even which side I would have. I believe he outlined the information so thoroughly and informatively, using numbers to prove his points, that he presented both sides of the issue fairly.
Mitch Fick // March 3, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The New York Times article uses a large amount of numbers very clearly to tell the story of Americans in prison. It is the kind of broad-sweeping story that needs to be told with strictly numbers, but is still backed up/argued by professionals when needed. Liptak looks at many possibilities for the increase and the validity of the statistics themselves and comes out with a very intriguing story involving the set of numbers he used. A graph on page 9 of the Pew Center Report shows the increase/decrease in prison populations by state over the past year. The largest growth seems to be in Southeastern states. Why is this? It would be interesting to see how much states spent/saved over the past year based on those numbers (a 2005 number in the article said it cost $23,876 a year to imprison someone in the U.S.)
The Los Angeles Times piece takes a big human interest – death – and throws it into the cold, uncaring hands of numbers and money. There is less numerical content, but the numbers are still there and are used just as effectively as in the Laptik story. Considering the sensitivity of the subject of having a complete stranger invest in your life strictly to make money for themselves may be an evil subject for a journalist, but Lifsher does a fine job of keeping the coldness at bay by involving the human aspect. There doesn’t appear to be any bias, given that both sides seem to be covered thoroughly.
Morgan // March 4, 2008 at 3:35 am
In the first two full paragraphs of the NYT article I counted 6 figures. I had to re-read the 2nd paragraph specifically to get the facts.
After getting through those paragraphs the numbers and figures became more evenly spaced throughout the rest of the story.
I agree with Eric; this type of story needs numbers to prove its point. The shock value of this piece lies in the numbers.
Liptak used the numbers in a fair and complete way.
My only suggestion to him would be to use more graphics or maybe a table that lays out the numbers in an orderly fashion. A busy reader isn’t going to have time to read that whole article and comprehend everything. At least someone like that could skim a table or a graph to get the big picture.
The LA Times article was much less number filled. The figures were spread out evenly throughout the text.
I definitely agree that the $200,000 in the second paragraph jumps out at the reader and entices them to continue.
Caroline Stedman // March 5, 2008 at 3:52 am
The New York Times article did not seem to horrifically jammed with stats and numbers (in my opinion), mostly because I think they were necessary in order to convey the point of the report – and draw out the difference between this report and the usual stats that we hear from the Justice Dept.
However, I actually felt like numbers were missing from the LA Times article. I felt like the article didn’t really explain how these life-insurance investors were dangerous (or potentially so) to seniors. For example what kind of monetary down fall is there potentially? That is where I really felt like numbers were missing. Could Gram lose all that money they give to her?
Sarah V. // March 10, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I did not want to read past the second paragraph of the Liptak article- and wouldn’t have if I was a general audience reader. There were many paragraphs filled with number that made it very difficult to read the article quickly- something most readers do. Toward the end of the story, when he got to talking about violent/non-violent prisoners, I felt that he could have covered this differently to prevent any sort of bias.
I also don’t like the infographic used. I think it would be more useful if it was a chart indicating the decreasing and increasing numbers of those people in both prisons and local jails.
Instead of breaking down the numbers of prisoners by race, maybe he could have done it by age- this would also lend itself to less biased coverage.
The second story was much easier to read because the numbers were very spread out. I also think that the human interest angle he took in writing it helped this out- he was able to show how it affected people, rather than just spout off numbers and proportions of those it could affect. Just because of the ease of read, I would definately rather read a story like this instead of the NYT ones.