Dodgy data presentation - BBC News

[Dave2002]

I was very saddened to see Nick Eardley trying to present some data graphically on BBC TV News very recently. He was trying to make an argument about austerity, and expenditure - for example on the NHS, and whether it would be better or worse under Labour - or any other party.

Unfortunately the graph as presented showed nothing of the sort. What he was trying to show was an extrapolation from data dating back to the start of the 2000s, but unfortunately the line marked as a prediction went upwards, yet without any evidence that it should do that. It would have been perfectly reasonable to have had a straight line, or even a downward curving prediction. What he should have shown - based on the data - should have looked more like a hosepipe spraying out water, with some lines going up, some carrying on roughtly in a straight line, and some curving down.

Thus there should have been several possible trajectories, with no particular strength attached to any of them - and probably not the one actually shown as "the" prediction.

There may have been other factors or reasons for the justifications given, but based on the data as presented visually the extrapolation was not at all valid.

To me this is/was very shoddy reporting. The BBC should do better than this.

[Serial_Apologist]

I noticed that too and wondered about it. But this is just typical of the BBC's presenting information in reductive form. I think there's more to it than Auntie assuming that relaying simplification in short chunks within disingenuous time slots is, in general terms, all that is capable of being absorbed by Joe Public.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I noticed that too and wondered about it......

I wondered, as well. Nick Eardley I know as a political correspondent. I thought it was rather open to question - and gave rise to the thought: how much of public spending is to be captured by health as the line of the graph climbs ever upwards. The view that the NHS is an inefficient bottomless pit of spending demands is frequently advanced in, for example, the comments in the online Times newspaper.

Having had that thought, I read in the Guardian letters that the "expect tough love from me" sentiment from the shadow health minister needs to be assessed against indisputable comparisons of numbers of hospital (and intensive care) beds and staff with other health systems and other resources generally. Insufficient beds and staff, and no matter how many scanners/diagnoses you provide, it won't result in operations that clear the record backlog and queues of Ambulances outside A&E...........

As to graphs and presentations on the BBC, Faisal Islam's - the BBC Economics Editor's presentations on Newsnight are often, or maybe that's on occasion, particularly illuminating in relation to the matter under discussion. I recall a recent presentation showing the UK and the US as two nations with the worst excess mortality from Covid

[Dave2002]

I noticed that too and wondered about it. But this is just typical of the BBC's presenting information in reductive form. I think there's more to it than Auntie assuming that relaying simplification in short chunks within disingenuous time slots is, in general terms, all that is capable of being absorbed by Joe Public.

It may, for some, be all that they can cope with, but in that case the BBC is following a very dubious line, as those who can't think for themselves will be persuaded and probably reiterate some of the nonsense which may follow from such badly presented data and arguments.

I'm guessing that Mr Eardley gets paid more than I ever did [even allowing for inflation] so I really don't think this is acceptable, even though I don't dislike him. Also, in the particular example, the "conclusions" such as they were might have been disadvantageous to the Conservatives, and even though I might well sympathise with attempts to portray the Tories as a bunch of self serving con men or general incompetents, it is unfair, and probably unnecessary, to exaggerate things by distorting the state of affairs further by misrepresenting the data.

[Serial_Apologist]

It may, for some, be all that they can cope with, but in that case the BBC is following a very dubious line, as those who can't think for themselves will be persuaded and probably reiterate some of the nonsense which may follow from such badly presented data and arguments.

I'm guessing that Mr Eardley gets paid more than I ever did [even allowing for inflation] so I really don't think this is acceptable, even though I don't dislike him. Also, in the particular example, the "conclusions" such as they were might have been disadvantageous to the Conservatives, and even though I might well sympathise with attempts to portray the Tories as a bunch of self serving con men or general incompetents, it is unfair, and probably unnecessary, to exaggerate things by distorting the state of affairs further by misrepresenting the data.

It is also quite anomalous given hosts and presenters more usual way of giving Tories more of the benefit of the doubt than other political representatives, as regularly experienced from watching Laura Kuenssberg's friendly Sunday morning chats with ministers with acquiescent friendly back up and only muted criticism from the panel next door; but I guess it's now becoming so plainly obvious what a shambles this lot on government are, that with an alternative small c conservative government waiting in the wings the BBC has to carry out its duty to prepare the way for more of the "inevitable"!

[teamsaint]

BBC and its news output is well past being given the benefit of the doubt, IMHO.
it needs to be as far as possible beyond reproach.

[smittims]

I've heard recently that news people are disturbed by reports that young people in particular are 'turning away from news'. I've been discontented for years with the distorted and slanted way evens are reported and th selection of what is and is not 'news', not to mention the cult of the news presenter as hero . Everytime I've seen a Tv news item ona subject about which I do happen to know something I hear inaccuracies. Goodness knows how many there are in the reports on subjects I know nothing about.

[LMcD]

I've heard recently that news people are disturbed by reports that young people in particular are 'turning away from news'. I've been discontented for years with the distorted and slanted way evens are reported and th selection of what is and is not 'news', not to mention the cult of the news presenter as hero . Everytime I've seen a Tv news item ona subject about which I do happen to know something I hear inaccuracies. Goodness knows how many there are in the reports on subjects I know nothing about.

Increasingly, I limit my exposure to broadcast news to the BBC World Service, France 24 and the summaries on Radio 3. .

[Ein Heldenleben]

I was very saddened to see Nick Eardley trying to present some data graphically on BBC TV News very recently. He was trying to make an argument about austerity, and expenditure - for example on the NHS, and whether it would be better or worse under Labour - or any other party.

Unfortunately the graph as presented showed nothing of the sort. What he was trying to show was an extrapolation from data dating back to the start of the 2000s, but unfortunately the line marked as a prediction went upwards, yet without any evidence that it should do that. It would have been perfectly reasonable to have had a straight line, or even a downward curving prediction. What he should have shown - based on the data - should have looked more like a hosepipe spraying out water, with some lines going up, some carrying on roughtly in a straight line, and some curving down.

Thus there should have been several possible trajectories, with no particular strength attached to any of them - and probably not the one actually shown as "the" prediction.

There may have been other factors or reasons for the justifications given, but based on the data as presented visually the extrapolation was not at all valid.

To me this is/was very shoddy reporting. The BBC should do better than this.

I would have thought it would have been very easy to contrast spending on the NHS from 1997 to 2010 ( the last Labour government) and 2010 onwards. Just from memory I think spending on the NHS doubled in real terms under the former whereas under the latter although spending went up over and above inflation the end result was nothing like a doubling, Labour had the benefit of strong economic growth and in particular tax receipts from the City until 2008. The Tories had the problem of the aftermath of the 2008 crash . Since then growth has been pitiful , the general health of the population has declined, and we’ve had Covid.
Which ever government gets in if we want better public services we are going to have to pax more tax or get decent economic growth - both would be nice . The two aren’t incompatible- the US managed precisely that in the fifties as did we in the sixties. We are still at the bottom end of European countries in terms of tax take even though it’s at an historic high outside wartime and immediate aftermath. Of course you won’t hear too much of this in the forthcoming election campaign. Nor indeed the staggering current levels of government debt.

[Serial_Apologist]

I would have thought it would have been very easy to contrast spending on the NHS from 1997 to 2010 ( the last Labour government) and 2010 onwards. Just from memory I think spending on the NHS doubled in real terms under the former whereas under the latter although spending went up over and above inflation the end result was nothing like a doubling, Labour had the benefit of strong economic growth and in particular tax receipts from the City until 2008. The Tories had the problem of the aftermath of the 2008 crash . Since then growth has been pitiful , the general health of the population has declined, and we’ve had Covid.
Which ever government gets in if we want better public services we are going to have to pax more tax or get decent economic growth - both would be nice . The two aren’t incompatible- the US managed precisely that in the fifties as did we in the sixties. We are still at the bottom end of European countries in terms of tax take even though it’s at an historic high outside wartime and immediate aftermath. Of course you won’t hear too much of this in the forthcoming election campaign. Nor indeed the staggering current levels of government debt.

The trouble is the kind of growth you require should be in sustainable energy and commodity manufacture, rather than in fashionable unrecyclables, banking and betting on stock exchanges (viz speculation). For that there has to be borrowing, and the private banking section either won't come up with the readies for what is not immediately profitable (because unsustainability is written into how unadulterated capitalist orthodoxy "works") or will charge exorbitant interest rates cutting off the life source at source; and the establishment (political and economic "experts") will say how can investors invest if they see no short-term return? Long-term debt was never seen as a problem during the Keynsian years of steady growth Thatcher and Keith Joseph abandoned to capitalism raw in tooth and claw. From memory our debt from WW" and post-WWT reconstruction was only paid off in 2015, wasn't it? I can't see Starmer (or for that matter any among the current upcoming populists abroad) continuing Corbyn's idea of national state-owned banks providing for sustainable well-paid jobs.