Sue Lani Madsen: What’s missing from this picture?

Public trust in mass media has been dropping for 25 years and is at the second-lowest level ever, right behind 2016. Distrust among self-identified Republicans, according to Gallup, has stayed flat from 2020 levels while trust among Democrats and independents dropped 5 points.

It’s one of many troublesome trends for regional newspapers like The Spokesman-Review just as much as for the Washington Post, CNN and Fox News networks of the world. Confidence shrinks every time a story is perceived as missing context or missing information.

But every story will always be missing some context and can’t possibly include all relevant information. Deciding what to include and what to leave out is like packing a carry-on suitcase and making the judgment call on whether you’ll really need that extra sweater. Given the near-zero and subzero temperatures this week, holiday visitors from Arizona may have wished they brought that sweater.

Judgment calls on which information to include or exclude affects both opinion columns and straight reporting. Tuesday’s Spokesman-Review included a story with useful advice on keeping your car running in the cold. An expert mechanic was quoted recommending warming up your car for about 15 minutes before starting your travels, both for smoother engine operation and a more alert driver. But the advice was missing a relevant warning.

In this state, leaving your car running in the driveway for 15 minutes while you go back inside to fetch a hot cup of coffee is a violation of RCW 46.61.600, although the likelihood of a citation is minimal.

Presumably readers will know if they are in a neighborhood where car theft is a hazard and decide appropriately. And a headline reading “How to keep your car running despite frigid weather” accurately describes the focused content.

But too often headlines may spin a story in a direction contrary to the content. In my opinion, and this is clearly labeled an opinion column, Wednesday’s Spokesman-Review frontpage headline reading “Washington reports record number of daily COVID-19 cases” with the deckhead “6,235 tops previous day ceiling by over 700, says Department of Health” was an example of critical missing context.

There’s no reason to doubt the numbers. In my experience, editors are very careful about numbers, names, titles and other quite objective facts. It’s the implication that these numbers are somehow both meaningful and alarming.

Counting cases without context is a useless statistic. Are there more cases identified because more people are testing? Have we really identified all the cases, when test kits have been scarce? Do we know anything about the rate among those who are reluctant to test because they just don’t want the hassle of potentially being forced to quarantine when they have no symptoms and have work to be done?

None of those questions can be answered without a testing protocol using a representative cross-section of the population, both symptomatic and asymptomatic.

While 6,235 cases identified in one day in the state of Washington sounds like a big number, it means a mere 0.08% of the total population tested positive for COVID-19. And being able to calculate a percentage rate down to two decimal places still doesn’t put it in context as this new seasonal virus moves through different regions at different times. Are we doing better or worse than other places at the same stage? Can’t tell from these numbers.

But compared to the U.S. Navy warship where one-third of a young, healthy and 98% vaccinated crew tested positive, 0.08% sounds positively miraculous.

It reminds me of a lesson drilled into us at Public Information Officer training for fire districts. When reporters show up at the scene of an emergency, give them numbers and a place to take pictures of big red trucks with flashing lights. “Responding to the scene were 24 fire fighters in 12 trucks from three districts across two counties and one partridge in a pear tree,” says the PIO confidently.

Numbers alone don’t tell you if that was too few personnel, the right trucks for the job, or whether there should have been more partridges or pear trees. Authoritative sounding numbers without context are the source of misinformation and misunderstanding whether your sources are mainstream news publications or videos circulating “secretly” on social media.

And we can’t rely on social media to fact-check for us. Facebook is defending itself against a defamation lawsuit brought by journalist and commentator John Stossel by admitting their “fact check” labels are opinions. Facebook’s own third-party reviewers have admitted Stossel’s reporting was factually accurate, while also claiming they had no obligation to actually watch his videos before publicly labeling two of them as “partly false” and “missing context.” Facebook simply didn’t like the tone he used.

On the eve of 2022 it’s tempting to tune it all out, but we need engaged citizens. Listen to a variety of sources and check the tone for yourself. Trust but verify.