The pay gap that might not be there

Need to prove an argument? Chuck in some statistics. Any old ones will do.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if a journalist is ignorant of statistics or is being deliberately misleading. Like most of us, they seldom question statistics that seem to prove what they already think they know. 

The Guardian is no better or worse than most, and it's been doing a lot of it lately. Some of its statistics are misleading, but mostly they simply don't say what they seem to say. Whether the writer knows this and is trying to pull a fast one or just doesn't understand what the numbers mean is hard to say. 

Take this example, in a recent article about how the press should report suicide in the wake of Robin Williams' death:

Say it clearly or not at all

Most writers, and nearly all editors, secretly know that they care too much. Once upon a time, poor language was restricted to personal correspondence, because nobody got published unless they had a good grasp of English already, and even the worst of them (F Scott Fitzgerald springs to mind) usually had good editors who would make sure their writing was in decent shape before any reader saw it.

That all changed with the internet. Suddenly we are overwhelmed by the thoughts of the illiterati as they spew across the web like stinking turds from a broken sewer, through blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the comment sections of news websites. No sooner has an idea dawned with feeble glow of a five-Watt bulb than it's there on the internet for the world to see, forever. Speak You're Branes: there's no one to stop you.