BizCom in the News

Confusing Column Chart

With the title, "Two Charts Which Show That April Was A Horrible Month For American Manufacturing," I would expect to see clear, easy-to-interpret charts. This one is not.

Here are Business Insider's introductory text and the chart:  

"If there is an American manufacturing renaissance, it certainly appears to  have stalled in April.

"From the just-released ADP report, a chart which shows that manufacturing actually lost jobs in the month!"

Granted, this chart is very colorful, and overall, the numbers generally decline since November 12. But how can the chart be improved? Consider the following:

• Including a message title
• Adding data labels
• Choosing a different (or supplemental) chart type
• Highlighting most relevant data graphically and numerically

The purpose of the chart is to show that manufacturing lost jobs in April. Do we know exactly how many—both as a percentage and raw number? This would seem to be an important part of the argument.

BP Skirts Wikipedia Rules to Edit Content

British Petroleum is accused of rewriting 44% of the company's Wikipedia entry, particularly about its environmental record. It's bad timing, as BP prepares for an April 5th federal hearing about potentially billions of dollars the company could owe in a class-action suit about the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Although the contributor explains his interests on his Wikipedia user page, "Arturo" has more influence than people  believe is appropriate. On his page, Arturo writes,

"I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose 'Arturo at BP' as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia. Per WP:ORGNAME, I believe that this username is appropriate, and I should point out that I will be the only person to use this account.

"Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, and in recognition of the ongoing debate regarding companies’ involvement on Wikipedia, I will only be editing Talk pages and will not make any edits to encyclopedia articles. My primary goal in being active on Wikipedia through this account is to improve the overall quality of BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines."

True, Arturo does not directly edit Wikipedia pages about BP, but he does contribute content via his "Talk" page on Wikipedia. Apparently, this content is approved by BP executives. One logical concern is why Wikipedia editors are simply copying and pasting Arturo's entries.

On an editorial Wikipedia page, comments are flying about whether BP's actions are appropriate:

"A paid editor from BP is writing up material for the BP article and for the BP environmental section in particular.

"He does pay attention to the letter of the rules, but I don't think it is anywhere near the spirit, e.g. he checks with his higher-ups before responding to any questions."

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of BP's contributions: fair play, crossing a line, or something else?
• How, if at all, does this news affect your image of Wikipedia as a reliable source?

Study: How Twitter Sentiment Compares to Public Opinion

We should be careful about drawing conclusions about overall public opinion based on tweets, according to a recent Pew study. Sometimes reactions on Twitter are more politically liberal, while at other times, they are more conservative. Often, they are more negative.

For example, when a California law last year banning same-sex marriage was found to be unconstitutional, Twitter conversations were much more positive (46%) than negative (8%). These results contrast sharply with a general opinion poll showing 33% to be positive and 44 to be negative.

Reactions to the presidential election also ran more positively on Twitter, with most users supporting President Obama.  However, reactions to the president's State of the Union address were far more negative on Twitter than in the general population.

One explanation of these differences and inconsistencies is the small percentage of people who get news from and participate on Twitter. Only 13% of adults read Tweets, and only 3% regularly or sometimes tweet or retweet news. Users are not a representative sample of the U.S. population; for example, Twitter users include those under 18 and people outside the United States, while opinion surveys exclude both groups.

Discussion Starters:

• What else could account for more negativity on Twitter? 
• Research Twitter demographics. What, if any, other conclusions can you draw about its users?

Yale Sex Survey Debunked

Who can resist a compelling headline? "Nine Percent of Yale Students Surveyed Say They’ve Accepted Money for Sex," an article in The College Fix, didn't give us the full picture. Skeptics might ask questions such as, "Who was surveyed and under what conditions?" and "How many people were included in the sample?"

As it turns out, the survey was taken during a "Sex Weekend" workshop for participants to "learn about masochistic sexual practices such as those depicted in 50 Shades of Grey," according to a Yale Daily News reporter. Does this group represent the typical Yale student?

How many students at the workshop completed the survey is unclear. The Yale Daily News reports that 55 students attended the workshop, but Business Insider claims that only 40 students were asked to complete the survey. Using Business Insider's numbers, four students said they were paid for sex.

Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What would be a better way to administer a survey to Yale students to get a more representative sample? What categories of students would need to be included?
• How many responses would you consider before making a claim about students' sexual behavior?

Dr. Oz's Advice "Borders on Quackery"

Dr. Mehmet Oz was propelled into stardom by his popular appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Now, he has his own television show, which seems to be an avenue for promoting strange products.

For business communication students, the example reminds us how important it is to check facts. Does the board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon not review research of the products he promotes?

Slate describes Dr. Oz's enthusiasm for garcinia extract, which he says will finally help people "burn fat without spending every waking moment exercising and dieting":

"He then told his audience about a 'breakthrough,' 'magic,' 'holy grail,' even 'revolutionary' new fat buster. 'I want you to write it down,' America’s doctor urged his audience with a serious and trustworthy stare. After carefully wrapping his lips around the exotic words 'Garcinia cambogia,' he added, sternly: 'It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.'"

But garcinia cambogia has been studied for more than 15 years, and a JAMA article calls its anti-obesity results no better than a placebo. One of the study's authors, Edzard Ernst, said the product could have negative gastrointestinal effects and told Slate, "Dr. Oz's promotion of this and other unproven or disproven alternative treatments is irresponsible and borders on quackery."

Educated at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Oz presents himself as a credible source, but research does not support what he promotes. Slate compares more of Dr. Oz's recommendations to the "best available research." In most cases, his advice (e.g., to take zinc, Vitamin D, and DHA) doesn't match up. The so-called "Oz Effect"—people spending lots of money on products presented on his show—can be dangerous. As Ernst says, "Using bogus treatments for serious conditions may cost lives."

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Watch some of Dr. Oz's show. In addition to his status as a doctor, how else does he present himself as a credible promoter of these products. Pay attention to his language, dress, mannerisms, etc.
• Why do people so easily believe Dr. Oz? What is the audience's responsibility in the "Oz Effect"?