Recent searches
Search options
In this lovely heap of schadenfreude:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/sep/04/trump-media-djt-stock
…there is one sentence that’s a perfect example of a minor data journalism thing that doesn’t seem to be part of any newsroom’s editorial guidelines, but •should• be, dang it.
1/
Here’s the sentence:
❝ While TMTG has not disclosed the size of its user base, the research firm Similarweb estimated that in March it had 7.7m visits – while X, formerly Twitter, had 6.1bn. ❞
At a quick glance, if you’re not paying close attention, it almost sounds like TMTG and X have about the same amount of visits. Did it trip you up for a moment? In fact, X has 792 times more.
2/
Here is the data journalism rule I wish, wish, wish news sources would follow:
️ When comparing two quantities, they must be compared in like terms: ️
1. Same units
2. Same multiplier (thousand / million / billion)
3. Same denominator
3/
The sentence above fails the second criterion. It should read:
❝ While TMTG has not disclosed the size of its user base, the research firm Similarweb estimated that in March it had 7.7m visits – while X, formerly Twitter, had 6,100m. ❞
4/
Same units (this on a hypothetical example):
“The old truck weighs over 3 tons, whereas the new delivery cart weighs a mere 700 pounds.”
“The old truck weighs 6000 pounds, whereas the new delivery cart weighs a mere 700.”
5/
@inthehands “The old truck weighs more than 2 jacked giraffe bros, whereas the new delivery cart weighs a mere pack of wolves.”
@pointlessone @inthehands the old truck weighs as much as a smallish large boulder. The new truck weighs as much as a largeish small boulder.