I'd argue this applies to all information, not just numbers. It is easier to point out incorrect numerical values than an esoteric and hard to communicate set o

I'd argue this applies to all information, not just numbers. It is easier to point out incorrect numerical values than an esoteric and hard to communicate set of facts or circumstances. When it comes to modern journalism I see many problems: 1. Traditionally, editors write the headlines and sub heads. The editor knows even less about the subject than the writer so what are the chances they will get it right especially when their goal is not accuracy but attracting readers. 2. Twitter, the water cooler for all journalists, has put on public display and has quantified journalist relevance, popularity, and influence. Blogs did this to a certain extent but Twitter really put the gas to the pedal. Some news orgs force their journalists to use social media. This means that there are very real personal and career incentives to make the story fit the in-group narrative or be lambasted for it. This means that finding an angle on a story that highlights a specific narrative is the goal. To be clear the narrative is usually some worse case scenario that scares people and gets them to click. It doesn't have to be some sort of script handed down by a conspiracy. 3. Most people only read headlines and maybe the first few graffs. Often clarifying or information countering the headline is mentioned at the end of a piece. I often will read the end of an article first before subjecting myself to the manipulation found at the beginning of articles. 4. When success is about having clicks and shares there is a _strong_ incentive to publish stories before anyone else which is antithetical to carefully ensuring accuracy, integrity, and reason. All in all, journalism is simply organized hearsay and I never automatically believe anything I am being told. That is not say it is useless, but it is important to understand its nature before consuming it.