Cherry picking
Cherry picking is the selective reporting of research or data. This can range from a scientist not using all their data to inform their conclusions to individuals and organisations selecting only the data and research that supports their point of view.
Another example of cherry picking is the use of anecdotes. Anecdotes are usually personal experiences and are often only one example or experience. In this case, cherry picking is also called the anecdotal fallacy.
How to spot cherry picking
Is there a source for the data or research that is being referred to? Does the geographical region or the date make sense for the context?
If you can, check the original data and scientists’ conclusions. Were the scientists’ conclusions informed by all the data?
Has the person writing/reporting on the research used all the data?
What is the bigger picture? Are there any other factors being ignored?
Is any evidence missing? Search out contrary claims.
Cherry picking/an anecdotal fallacy is being used if you hear someone refute the dangers of cigarette smoking with a statement like this: “Smoking dangers are overstated. My Dad was a two pack a day bloke and he lived until he was 99.”
In the pictured article, British American Tobacco New Zealand signal its responsibility and commitment to stopping black market tobacco. It states: “Globally, illegal tobacco is a growing trade – some research indicates this account[s] for 11.2% of global tobacco consumption.”
New Zealand data suggests the actual use of illicit tobacco across 2012–2022 ranged from 2.9% to 17.51%. The Ministry of Health report states: “Historically, there is little evidence that significant increases in the illicit tobacco trade in NZ have taken place in response to past tobacco control measures.”
See more links and information on cherry-picked data about illegal tobacco trade in Aotearoa in the download Examples of bad science and countering false information.
Some questions to consider:
Why do you think the tobacco company chose to use global data and not New Zealand-specific data about illegal tobacco?
Why do you think the article then uses data about the seizure of illicit tobacco at the border in New Zealand?
Why does the New Zealand report detail the methods they used and caveats around the methods and data?
