Whether it be a case of intentional, or unintentional actions that lead to questionable research and resulting statistical information, that would remain largely an issue to be determined on an individual basis. What remains would be the relevance of statistical data for the understanding of wider scale circumstances but in that same mind frame, such information that would have been put together with clear and concise data inputs and without the presence of emotionalism, or the need for sensationalism in any way. An example of statistical data which may be misleading in any way, would be the numbers calculated as part of the discussion of the current state of affairs with the nations economy.
In his article Caution: Economic Statistics Are Wrong, author Floyd Norris addresses the issues that can take place, with regard to the statistical information surrounding the bigger question of economic solvency and what may be the issue(s) creating such uncertainty. Norris details that, if government statistics in recent years are to be believed, than the present growth in the economy at the time would have been at its lowest, the wages earned in the nation would have been on a continuous rate of falling and that an individuals standard of living would have stalled.
Both then President Bill Clinton and opponent Bob Dole would have done their respective work to push along the ideals from the study. As Norris writes, “..but most voters seemed ready to trust their own impressions, not numbers cranked out by economic statisticians,” (Norris, para. 7, 1996). In the case of this example, the answer may be that most individuals, despite the political jargon being thrown at them during a general election cycle, were choosing to utilize their own respective understanding of the circumstances at hand. In doing so, they would have elected to go against the statistical information placed in front of them and instead, would have