Data journalism needs a denominator as much as a headline number

A large number can command attention without explaining what changed. Data reporting becomes more informative when it identifies the population, time period and measurement behind a figure, giving readers a basis for comparison.

A count and a rate answer different questions. More recorded events may reflect a larger population, better reporting or a genuine increase in frequency. A percentage can also sound dramatic when it begins from a small base. The underlying definitions determine which interpretation is justified.

The Global Investigative Journalism Network's guidance on misleading numbers reflects a wider editorial discipline: check what was measured before deciding how to describe it. Missing records, changed boundaries or revised methods can make a neat year-to-year comparison less straightforward than it appears.

Charts carry the same responsibility as prose. Labels, units and the chosen range should help readers understand a pattern without exaggerating it. A strong data story connects numerical evidence with reporting about the people and systems behind it. Precision is not achieved simply by adding decimal places; it comes from making a claim that the available measurements can actually sustain.