

WSJ Misleading on Arctic Sea Ice Story - montyskew
http://montyskew.tumblr.com/post/61018470044/wsj-misleading-on-arctic-sea-ice-story

======
lutusp
Title: "WSJ Misleading on Arctic Sea Ice Story"

Quote from the article: "WSJ is right about the technical details (30% greater
summer sea ice than year before), but that sort of change happens."

SO WSJ's assertion was correct, but because "that sort of change happens",
therefore it was misleading? Imagine a pickpocket caught red-handed, saying,
"Your honor, these things happen, therefore to punish me would be misleading."

I would have called the WSJ's editorial out on its ostrich-like disregard for
long-term trends, not because their claim is misleading -- statistical
analysts are free to use any parameters they want for a moving average, for
example using months or years instead of decades. The claim isn't
"misleading", it's perfectly accurate and perfectly stupid.

~~~
montyskew
Thanks for the comment. A agree that their assertion/statement is accurate,
absolutely. Yet the way it is positioned, particularly as a headline, is
misleading to the reader because it ignores the broader context of the 2013
data. You can be accurate yet misleading. The graph clearly shows that the
2013 observation is almost exactly where all prior observations would predict
it would be. It is the job of newspapers to put information in context.

A more appropriate headline about the amount of ice would say "arctic sea ice
continues decline". A sentence in a first paragraph could say "though this
year's observation was 30% higher than last year's record low, it is in line
with long term decline in the amount of ice".

That said, WSJ has to sell papers/ads and their headline is admittedly more
eye catching, particularly to the _stereotypical_ conservative that is
skeptical of climate-change/global warming.

~~~
lutusp
> You can be accurate yet misleading.

True, but on the general topic of misleading, that should have been the
submission's headline. If an original source misleads with facts, and someone
wants to call them out, they had better not also mislead with facts.

It might have been better to say "WSJ cherry-picks its facts" or something
like that -- something that acknowledges the factual basis of the account, but
worded to avoid the very thing it accuses the WSJ of doing.

