Statistics tell the story you don’t want to hear

ONE of the cardinal rules of journalism relates to statistics. Don’t drizzle them all over your articles, wizened news editors will tell you. Use no more than a pinch and then sparingly.

But then they are the selfsame news editors who will tell you there’s a story at every corner. Sadly there is not. Not that they would know. Because they don’t have to go out and brave the elements like the poor gom of a junior reporter.

But let’s stick with the rule. No statistics unless it’s an emergency. Except in sports reporting — where anything goes. The more statistics the merrier. And it must be pointed out some of my friends who argue they are bored to tears with detail of the Anorak-in-Chief’s 18 hours at the Mahon Tribunal are the same people who bore me to tears with hole-by-hole and stroke-by-stroke accounts of their last epic round of golf. But you’ve got the message by this stage. Stats are for Prats. I’m sorry to have to disappoint you but they are central to the following discussion. The figure in question is 3%. Keep it in mind. It gets worse. The debate will also include phrases that will make readers desert this column quicker than the sight of a sergeant’s uniform will clear a country pub long after closing time. They are (brace yourselves): global warming; climate change; and (ouch) carbon emissions.