The national news comes up every day with a new report or the findings of a survey etc. They use the words 'report' and 'findings' as if they referred to some statement of fact or 'truth'. They are usually heralded by a sensational headline designed to catch our attention. But it is often the case that no one has bothered to actually read the details of the reports or 'studies' that are quoted, (the people surveyed, how they are chosen, the actual figures produced), and they often originate from lobby groups, foundations, or not-for-profits with vested interests in promoting certain agendas and causes.
Often the sensational headline comes from a misreading of a report, or the survey quoted was taken from such a restricted sample as to make the 'findings' outright fallacious.
The words, 'report' and 'findings' have been so misused in recent times that their original meanings have been corrupted — perverted to suit the objectives of sensationalism and to progress the agendas of interest groups.
The following are analyses of reports that have been featured in Australian news media in 2023.
Index
| 1. | The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ABC News item) |
| 2. | CoreLogic Report: Women & Property (ABC News item) |
| 3. | Warning labels on alcohol — poll results (ABC News item) |
Example 1:
Headline: 62% of Australians have been abused, neglected, or exposed to domestic violence during childhood.
This ABC News headline (3rd April 2023) certainly caught my attention.
video transcript report download written article
The segment says that researchers surveyed 8,503 people who were aged over 15, and they found:
The stated findings are shocking, until you read the actual report:
The study does not reveal what the robo-call message was, nor does it say at what point in the over-the-phone interview process were the vast majority of participants eliminated, ruled ineligible, etc, nor what criteria were used to make this selection.
The most that could be reasonably taken from the study is that from a carefully selected group of 8,503 people, from a survey of 154,889 who say they are interested in child maltreatment (or indeed consider that they have been maltreated as a child), from a survey field of 404,180 mobile phone owners, the claims of maltreatment in childhood of 62% of them, came up to the official description of child abuse.
The percentages given at the start of the segment may be true of 8,503 people, carefully selected from a test sample of 404,180 people, but to 'suggest' that they may have some relevance to the entire Australian population is pure sensationalistic garbage. Further, that they can be taken seriously by the Attorney General and the National Children's Commissioner (annual salary 300K+) is a worry for all taxpayers.
The arithmatic that the study leaves out is:
So the ABC headline (to be accurate), should have read:
'1.3% of Australians have been abused, neglected, or exposed to domestic violence during childhood.'
3rd August 2023 update: In a report on channel 7 news, the arrest in Australia of a major pedaphile, (a shocking case), the National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, appears on camera and quotes the figures from this report as 'fact':
Hollonds: 'The Australian Child Maltreatment Study shows that 62% of Australians have suffered one or more types of child maltreatment and nearly 30% of them suffered child sexual abuse.' TV News segment
Example 2:
CoreLogic Report: Women & Property (ABC News item)
8th March 2023
On International Women's Day 2023, ABC ran a segment several times throughout the day concerning a report by CoreLogic, entitled 'Women & Property: One Year On'. (online) (local copy) The message being presented was that in Australia, men own more real estate than women, and because of the 'gender pay gap' 'men can save for a 20% home deposit a year earlier (on average) than women.'
The term used was 'dwelling ownership', and the figures from the report were correctly given, from the perspective of having names on the deeds of property: Property ownership: men: 29.9%; women: 26.6%. It is only when you actually read the Corelogic report that the limitations of these figures are revealed.
Only names on title deeds were considered, and this information was not compared to the electoral rolls. So, who was actually living in the properties (dwelling) and exercising the 'effective benefit of ownership' is an open question.
If you consider the facts that couples often buy a property together in the early years of the relationship whilst the female partner is not working whilst having children, then it is natural that the working partner may be the sole name on the deed to the property, (mortgage issues etc.), and the fact that after divorce, it is usual for the female partner to retain residency of the house and custody of the children. Note: there are over 56,000 divorces in Australia each year. Further, on the break-up of a relationship, division of property is the rule, regardless of whose name is on the deed to the marital home.
The report also notes that women tend to out number men as having their names on title deeds in the more affluent areas of Australia. So if you consider that the average price of a house in the suburb of Vaucluse, in Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs, is $8,375,000 and the average price of a house in a large regional centre, say Dubbo, is $540,000. Thus one woman owning a house in Vaucluse, (where female owners predominate), would be balanced by a man owning 15.5 houses in Dubbo (where male owners predominate). But the study doesn't take this into account — it compares names on deeds without considering the values of the properties.
So, men owning (having their names on deeds) at 29.9%, compared to women (having their names on deeds) at 26.6%, ceases to have any verifyable meaning as far as wealth in property. In fact, on the figures contained in the CoreLogic report, it is much more likely that women have title to a much larger dollar amount of property value than men. And the ABC saying, repeatedly, that men 'own' more property in Australia than women, is just a blatant lie. Don't they bother to read the reports they publicise?
Example 3:
Report finds 78% of Australians support warning labels on alcohol
ABC News item: 20th October 2023.
The ABC News reported that 'Australians overwhelmingly support' a plan to introduce health warnings on wine bottles and beer cans.
They are referring to a report released by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), which is a not-for-profit enterprise.
The ABC wrongly reports that 'this survey of more then 1,000 people was conducted by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.' Whilst the report was prepared by 'fare', it is based on a survey they commissioned from 'Pure Profile', an on-line survey company that pays people to complete on-line surveys. (company site) (However, reading reviews from participants you get the idea receiving actual payment can be difficult.) (link) (link)
The company by-line of 'first-party data with cutting-edge technology to power businesses into the future' indicates that their income stream comes from supplying data to businesses. An interesting insight into their methods is given from paidforsurveys.com.
Once someone signs up to do surveys (for money) they routinely are asked to update their 'profile' with numerous details of their life, and I presume preferences. This is where perhaps, the 'cutting-edge technology' kicks in. Because participants can only participate in a survey they choose from a list of surveys that they are offered. So there seems to have been a selection filter applied before a particular person is offered to participate in a particular survey.
The 'Report' released by 'FARE' makes no mention of a selection process. It just says that they 'commissioned Pure Profile to conduct polling of Australians.'
When you hear the word 'poll' you automatically think of people being stopped on the street and asked questions. But no! Pure Profile selects 1,000 people from their subscribers by an algorythm that isn't stated. Also the actual request given to Pure Profile is not stated. All their report reveals is that they instructed Pure Profile to 'ask Australians about their support for health warnings on alcoholic products.' (Perish the thought that they indicated any preference for what the survey would conclude.)
Considering the organisations involved, the methodoligies and the unstated factors, the ABC's lead statement that 'Australians overwhelmingly support a plan to introduce health warnings on wine bottles and beer cans' starts to look like blatant misinformation.
Note: The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education has a board of 9 members (3 men and 6 women) and a team of 25 workers (3 are men and 22 are women). The CEO and all 4 team leaders are women.