The problem is statistics are used to summarize complex issues in a way that can be quickly digested. The tendency for most people who present “the numbers” is to further prune it down to just the juicy bits or the parts that prove a given point.
That’s when I get skeptical, when someone drops one number out of a whole array of options as proof of their point. It doesn’t make sense to say 40% of people love cats without either relaying the question or relaying the other data. It just doesn’t mean anything.
If 40% of people love cats and the question was “Do you love cats, true or false?” that’s far different than someone asking “What animal would you most like in your home?” with 40% saying cats, 40% saying none and 20% saying dogs.
It’s a benign simplified example, but if you replace “cats” with a political candidate, you have the makings for what passes as a typical use of statistics in the news.
I trust statistics when I can see enough of the information to feel informed or understand the material they’re based off of. And that’s the problem, the way their typically used outside of the studies and papers their based off of is meant to summarize quickly so presenting the full data kind of defeats the point.
Footnotes are a great solution that are underused and don’t seem to have an equivalent outside of text. (video, tv, etc. rarely cite sources outside of “A new study from the Federal Bureau of Cats says…”)
Economic statistics do a great job I think because they’re standardized and reported the same each and every time. The problem again is you have to have a certain understanding of the material and what the numbers actually measure is rarely covered when they’re presented.