Journalists and Numbers

They don't mix. Latest example:

It is disingenuous to suggest that a Los Angeles Times of 700 editorial employees somehow will be a journalistic sham. In fact, it is ridiculous. Even if the current 850-some were going full-blast, and I’m going to guess they weren’t … if the surviving 80 percent of the staff turns up production by 20 percent … you’ve just covered your losses.

Take 20% of 80 — that's 16, not 20. The percentage Paul Oberjuerge was looking for is 25 — a fourth, not a fifth. I guess it makes me a pedant to point that out. But really, if you can't do this stuff in your head, invest five bucks in a calculator already. Your readers will thank you. Or at least not laugh at you.

              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

By the way, may I suggest that among those the L.A. Times lays off is reporter Scott Glover, the lowlife who came up with deliberate exaggerations and obfuscations regarding the "porn" found on Judge Alex Kozinski's "website"? Glover's unpardonable article was the equivalent of lighting a match to a man's home and livelihood. May the sumbich find himself on a Southern California breadline soon.

Comments

[Peter Parker]

I don't understand the correction to Oberjuerge's numbers. His calculation is: (700 * 120%) or (700 * 1.2). This equals 840, which is pretty close to the "850-some" current employees.

Using 25% instead of 20% would result in 875, which is even further away from 850.

[Rogier]

Peter:

The problem is with this sentence of Oberjuerge's:

"If the surviving 80 percent of the staff turns up production by 20 percent … you’ve just covered your losses."

Getting to 100 percent from 80 percent takes a 25% increase, not a 20% increase.

Here's a similar example. If Oberjuerge has investments worth $100,000, and his portfolio loses 20 percent of its value, it doesn't make him whole if, a month later, the market has yoyod back up 20%. He'll need a *25% hike* to get back to the 100 grand he had.

[Peter Parker]

Okay, I get your point now, but I suspect he was thinking of how to get from 700 to 850 rather than from .80 to 1.00. That is how I read his comment and why I missed your point.

[Rogier]

Nah. He's talking about ramping up article production, not increasing staffing (NO WAY any newspaper is going to actually hire more staff right now -- the L.A. Times least of all).

[gb]

"...if you can't do this stuff in your head, invest five bucks in a calculator already."

hee hee hee!