By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.
A 2018 report by the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders became one of the earliest and most influential sources behind claims of mass detention in Xinjiang. We examine the report's methodology, showing how findings from interviews with just eight people were extrapolated to estimate millions, and why its use of convenience sampling raises fundamental questions about the reliability of its conclusions.
Numbers aren't always neutral. They can be based on flawed math or shaky assumptions. But once they're widely cited, they're often treated as unquestionable facts – and that's how audiences can be misled.
Watch the full episode: When data misleads: The hidden tricks behind 'objective' reports
A 2018 report by the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders became one of the earliest and most influential sources behind claims of mass detention in Xinjiang. We examine the report's methodology, showing how findings from interviews with just eight people were extrapolated to estimate millions, and why its use of convenience sampling raises fundamental questions about the reliability of its conclusions.
Numbers aren't always neutral. They can be based on flawed math or shaky assumptions. But once they're widely cited, they're often treated as unquestionable facts – and that's how audiences can be misled.
Watch the full episode: When data misleads: The hidden tricks behind 'objective' reports
https://youtu.be/J10JdXorXGU