WSJ article forgets to give readers context

Marek Fuchs of TheStreet.com noted in his Saturday column that a Wall Street Journal article about where American vehicles ranked among Consumer Reports’ most reliable cars forgot to give the readers any context as to how U.S. cars ranked last year.

Fuchs wrote, “Ford’s newest models scored among the top reliable vehicles, one the second-most reliable car. And?

“Well, there is no ‘and.’

“Turns out 39 of the 47 vehicles with the highest reliability rating are still Japanese. And the comparison with last year? That all-important reference point?

“Well once again — this time inexcusably — there is no ‘and.’ That’s right: The Wall Street Journal tried to draw a conclusion over a reported number, without offering a comparable. For that they obviously earn the dreaded Business Press Maven ‘Back of the Hand’ award. If I had two to give out, I’d throw both at ’em.

“What did Consumer Reports say last year? Don’t worry, Wall Street Journal, The Business Press Maven will do your heavy lifting for you. Last year there were 47 highly reliable cars and six were American. That means that, indeed, American automakers may have made slight statistical progress on that front. But we don’t know that without knowing that number; moreover, we can’t be sure if there is some flukish element to that number until we compare the least-reliable car list. This year about half the cars on it were American. Last year, also roughly half.”

Read more here.