The euro zone faces a 40 per cent chance of another recession as fears mount that the debt crisis will escalate further.
Says a particular article in the Ottawa Citizen. My first reaction was: whaaa…
Then a recognition of the stupidity, absurdity and sheer journalistic laziness of including such a figure and assertion. There’s not even an attempt to explain this particular statistic, just a casual reference as if the reader is supposed to accept it like anything else. As a journalist, there’s no reason to presume that the reader may be curious about particular things you write, especially when they’re that are beyond common sense or basic understanding.
The statistic is moronic, but I don’t think that automatically means the journalist is a moron. The journalist is just lazy, clearly not too concerned with his position to sway the public. Perhaps that makes the writer stupid in one sense, not doing their job with the integrity that should be expected.
And this wasn’t your everyday assertion without factual or expansion about it. It was a claim involving a (potential and possible) massive event: a European recession. This is casually suggesting the chances of a catastrophic can even be quantified. No margin of error, a solid and secure 40%. Wow. Isn’t that amazing.
A little bit of research would show you that number wasn’t taken from a economic study that came with a figure through tests, logic and reason (I would still find that dubious and objectionable). It’s not from a collaboration of bright minds throughout the world to come together with an objective and scientific figure to help explain the future. It turns out, it was a poll of 70 economists. This was a poll of 70 economists, who speculated and guessed on the chance of said recession. Then a medium percent – from those speculations and guesses – was complied to give a figure of 40%. This is an unbelievably unreliable and dismissable piece, and Andy Bruce casually uses it like some sort of solid fact. Let me restate: this was a poll. A freaking poll.
That takes a type of laziness and neglectfulness to the extreme (one sentence to explain it all with a casual disregard for integrity or elaboration). Economics is not easily quantifiable, because speculation is not certain. Speculation can have it’s uses, and it can be important to discuss the possible outcomes of certain events. But as soon as you treat speculation (or a medium of aforementioned speculation) as easily applicable fact, you lose any air of objectivity you would have tried to present. This isn’t just presented unobjectively, this is presented misleadingly, inaccurately and negligently.
