For a textbook example of bad use of numbers in a news article, consider this, from a Times front-of-the-business section dispatch about a change in leadership at Verizon:
Mr. McAdam, who served six years in the Navy's Civil Engineer Corps before embarking on his career, became Verizon's chief executive in August 2011. During his tenure, he took big steps to prepare the company for the industry's current upheaval. In that time, Verizon's share price has increased nearly 40 percent, to $49.01.
Verizon, like many utility stocks, pays a dividend. At this writing, the annual dividend yield is 4.8%, according to Yahoo Finance. Does the Times "nearly 40 percent" figure assume dividends were reinvested in Verizon stock? Or not? The Times doesn't say, but it looks to me as if they are just not counting the dividends at all, which is a huge distortion, because those dividends are real money in shareholder pockets. If you count reinvesting the dividends, the stock performance from August 2011 to now is more like 87%, not "nearly 40%." Beyond that, the "nearly 40%" figure includes no basis for comparison. The S&P 500 Index was up about 115% during this period, by my calculations, so either "nearly 40%" or even 87% under-performed that benchmark. Maybe there's a more sensible benchmark — some telecommunications or utility index, or some competitor. Compare it to something, though. Otherwise that "nearly 40 percent" figure provides not much meaningful information to a reader.