| Statistical Assessment Service | |
|---|---|
| Legal status | Non-profit |
| Headquarters | Washington, D.C. |
| President | S. Robert Lichter |
| Parent organization | George Mason University |
| Affiliations | Center for Media and Public Affairs |
| Website | http://stats.org/ |
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) is a non-profit educational organization, based in Washington, DC, which analyzes and critiques the presentation of scientific findings and statistical evidence in the news media.[1]
Contents |
STATS was founded in 1994 by S. Robert Lichter, a professor of communications at George Mason University. According to the organization's website, to which it posts the majority of its research, its goal is to help correct "scientific misinformation in the media resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies".[2] As Lichter related to the Baltimore Sun in 1998, "journalists are deluged with numbers representing findings in fields they're not familiar with".[3] Its sister organization is the Center for Media and Public Affairs, also affiliated with George Mason.[3]
Lichter serves as the organization's president.[1] Other personnel include director of research Rebecca Goldin, a professor of mathematical sciences at George Mason and the Ruth Michler Fellow at Cornell University,[4] and STATS.org editor Trevor Butterworth, who is also listed as a senior fellow, and writes for the Huffington Post.[2] As of 2010[update], other senior fellows include Maia Szalavitz, a contributor to Reason magazine, and Stephen Rose.[2][5] The first director of STATS was David Murray, who previously worked for the Heritage Foundation and was later chief scientist for the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy.[6]
The organization's operating budget comes from politically conservative charitable foundations including the Carthage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,[7] Earhart Foundation, and the Castle Rock Foundation.[8] STATS does not accept funding from private companies.[3][9]
STATS produces an annual list called the "Dubious Data Awards", highlighting egregious factual inaccuracies in news reporting. In 2006, it challenged a study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, used by The New York Times and Forbes, which claimed that almost half of the alcohol industry's revenue came from underage drinkers. According to STATS, American teenagers who drink alcohol would each have to consume more than 1,000 drinks per year for this to be true.[10] STATS has also disagreed with recommendations from Time that parents should discontinue use of soft vinyl toys, teethers, and similar products containing phthalates, pointing out that phthalates in children's toys have been cleared for use by both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection.[10] The annual list has received coverage from The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, among other news organizations.[3][11]
During election years, STATS is often quoted in newspaper articles about the use of statistics in political rhetoric. During the presidential election of 2004, the organization challenged claims by both George W. Bush and John Kerry at the request of the Associated Press.[1]
In 2001, Lichter and his staff published It Ain't Necessarily So, a book about the media's coverage of a range of topics from crime statistics to the 2001 anthrax attacks. The Philadelphia Inquirer called it "a solid critique of the way data-based reports and studies are presented in the media",[12] while Salon.com felt that the book employed “the very same tactics that it finds so objectionable when used by journalists and publishers”.[13]
In 2007 STATS sponsored a survey of climate scientists, which was conducted by Harris International. The survey found that most climate scientists believe that human-induced global warming is occurring, although there is disagreement about its consequences, and few trust the popular media coverage of climate change.[14]
A 2009 article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel argued that STATS's coverage of the chemical Bisphenol A verged on advocacy for the chemical industry.[7][15] On the STATS website, Lichter posted a detailed response disputing the Journal-Sentinel article, calling its reporting and logic "flawed".[16]