The Washington Post has 50% to 80% fewer editors than they apparently need

Cidu Bill on Oct 1st 2009

Actual broadband speeds lag advertised speeds by as much as 50% to 80%. So more than half the time, and sometimes as much as eight out of ten times, consumers are paying for slower Internet access speed than they signed up for.

Interesting enough, the Post owns Newsweek, which I believe, over the past year, has not published a single statistic they did not mangle.

Filed in Bill Bickel, Newsweek, Washington Post, media, statistics | 17 responses so far

17 Responses to “The Washington Post has 50% to 80% fewer editors than they apparently need”

  1. Kyle Orland Oct 1st 2009 at 10:07 am 1

    No link to the article?

  2. yellojkt Oct 1st 2009 at 10:13 am 2

    Here is the article. What a hot mess of a sentence.

  3. Judge Mental Oct 1st 2009 at 10:31 am 3

    I don’t see the quote in the linked article. Did they realize their mistake and fix it? And is not just a “mess of a sentence”, the writer drew a conclusion that is not at all supported by the statistic.

    The 50-80% refers to the worst case variance, not “how often”.

  4. Carl Oct 1st 2009 at 11:01 am 4

    I would like to apologize on behalf of schoolteachers everywhere. And I’m no longer a schoolteacher.

  5. Usual John Oct 1st 2009 at 11:11 am 5

    It’s even worse than you think. Here’s the current version of the quote, based on the link provided by yellojkt:

    The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that more than half of all high-speed Internet subscribers are receiving data at slower speeds than what was advertised to them. In a report on the progress of its plan to bring broadband access to all American homes, the FCC reported several findings, including that actual broadband speeds lagged advertised speeds by as much as 50 to 80 percent.

    Is the edited version better or worse? It might be better, because it leaves open the possibility that there were two findings, (1) that a majority of users are receiving data at slower speeds than advertised and (2) that actual speeds lagged advertised speeds by as much as 50 - 80%. But in actuality, it’s even worse, because it’s simply camouflaging its inaccuracies with vague language. Here’s the language from the FCC press release, at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293719A1.doc:

    Different applications require different broadband speeds, with the most demanding being high-definition streamed video. But actual broadband speeds lag advertised speeds by at least 50% and possibly more during the busy hours. Peak usage hours, typically 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., create network congestion and speed degradation. About 1% of users drive 20% of traffic, while 20% of users drive up to 80% of traffic.

    So, nothing about an 80% lag at all; it appears that a busy reporter glanced at a press release and conflated some numbers. But wait - might the reporter have picked this up from the actual status report, and not just relied on the agency’s press release? Even to ask the question is to reveal a disturbing lack of knowledge of the modern press process. Anyway, here is what the actual status report says, at http://www.fcc.gov/openmeetings/092909slides.pdf (slide 26):

    • Actual median speeds lag advertised by
    ~50%, creating consumer confusion
    - Due to general internet congestion, user device
    processing speed, Connection type, etc.
    - “Busy Hours” create additional congestion and
    lower median speeds additional 10-20%

    And no, there’s nothing about this affecting “more than half” of broadband customers, or any language tending in that direction.

  6. Mark in Boston Oct 1st 2009 at 11:40 am 6

    Can you lend me $20? No, wait, don’t give me all of it yet, just give me $10 and owe me the other $10. Now I owe you $10, so we’re even.

  7. Elyrest Oct 1st 2009 at 12:48 pm 7

    In one comment about something entirely different I wrote about my frustration in reading articles where the writers bandy about dollars, fractions and percentages with abandon. Though I have a good math education the article usually loses me. In this case even the author is lost.

  8. Charlene Oct 1st 2009 at 03:38 pm 8

    I gave up on the news media’s ability to report anything science or technology-based earlier this year, when a study was headlined in almost every newspaper, “Restricting calorie intake increases lifespan”. The study in reality showed only that very thin people don’t die of obesity-related conditions.

    The researchers came up with a list of diseases that they considered to be “age-related”. When a subject in their study group died, their death was only considered part of the study if they died of one of these conditions. Anyone who died of anything else was excluded. Those who restricted calories were less likely to die of one of these supposed age-related conditions.

    The problem was that the diseases the researchers identified as “age-related” are really those related to obesity, not age. Worse, some of the causes of death they excluded are known to be age-related, but are more likely to affect the very thin. So they basically gamed the system, excluding any death that could be related to restricted calorie intake in order to manipulate the figures. The bad science went completely uncaught by major media organizations, who basically printed the press release.

    In the real world, very thin people who restrict calorie intake have a much shorter life expectancy than the average or simply overweight, and not much longer than the obese. As one doctor interviewed for a rebuttal said (and I paraphrase), “on a life expectancy basis, better to be forty pounds overweight than ten pounds underweight”.

  9. DPWally Oct 1st 2009 at 04:29 pm 9

    Aren’t these 2 things the same?
    “as much as 50 to 80 percent”
    “as much as 80 percent”

    The first one has a meaningless “50 to ” in it, which is exactly the sort of thing an editor should remove.

  10. Kevin A Oct 1st 2009 at 05:15 pm 10

    DPWally - I understand your point but in this case, I think the usage is okay as the measurements are [thought to be] both statistical (having a range of error based on unknown factors at the data source) and may depend on the time of day (e.g. “up to 50% right after school or work” and “up to 80% during p*rn time”).

    I really love and appreciate all the people who went out and found the original research and all the variations of its presentation. Thanks.

    Personally, I think users should be billed per GB as well as GB/hr, with a possible pass on public service announcements.
    For the same reason, I don’t rent an apartment any more in buildings where there’s only one furnace and heat is included in the rent. Half of the people opened their windows rather than turn off their radiators, as if it would magically have no effect on next year’s rent.

  11. Ted Oct 1st 2009 at 05:28 pm 11

    “The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that more than half of all high-speed Internet subscribers are receiving data at slower speeds than what was advertised to them. In a report on the progress of its plan to bring broadband access to all American homes, the FCC reported several findings, including that actual broadband speeds lagged advertised speeds by as much as 50 to 80 percent.”

    Seems to me they mean half of people with BB connections receive speeds 50 to 80% slower then advertised. Not to flame, but have we all lost the ability to read more then 140 characters at a time?

  12. firedmyass Oct 1st 2009 at 05:58 pm 12

    Um, Ted… next time you hear that whistling noise, look up. It may be another point going over your head.

  13. S.P. Charles Oct 1st 2009 at 06:00 pm 13

    Ted, I’m afraid the reading error is yours. As has already been pointed out, the article’s apparently been edited since Bill posted the opening lines. This discussion is based on the original version.

  14. Usual John Oct 1st 2009 at 06:01 pm 14

    Ted - Yes, that’s exactly what it sounds like they mean. That’s the problem. What they should have meant was that the average (median) broadband subscriber receives data at only 50% of the advertised speed, and the transmission rate drops to 30 - 40% of the advertised speed during the busiest time, 7 - 10 pm.

  15. Ted Oct 1st 2009 at 08:21 pm 15

    Usual John

    Thanks for the info.

  16. HM Oct 2nd 2009 at 12:17 pm 16

    The WaPo is my home paper and after MANY years of loyal subscription I recently dropped back to Sunday only. They have really gone down hill. This example is particularly bad because it’s misleading and confusing for folks who wouldn’t necessarily think to question it. But the constant daily copy-edit mistakes drive me crazy, misspellings, using the wrong words etc.

    One in particular made me really mad because it used an incorrect homophone for an over-the-phone quote, which made the person being quoted look wrong when it was really the reporter (or the copy-editor) who made the mistake (the person being interviewed likely didn’t stop to spell the word!).

    So, in pursuit of saving money (laying off editors), they have lost at least one daily subscriber, and likely a lot more.

  17. Snow Oct 2nd 2009 at 05:20 pm 17

    lol - reminds me of when I lived in Seattle “20% chance of rain means it’ll rain for 20% of the time today”. That works in Seattle……

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply