Though generally accurate in its discussion of the findings, I think that the article could have been written a little more clearly to avoid confusion in a few parts.
First, I would like to point out how the writer was able to show good practice. One such example of this is how some questions were directly lifted from the survey, such as “May mga suspect sa illegal na bentahan ng droga na sumuko na, pero pinatay pa [There are suspects in the illegal drug trade who already surrendered, yet were still killed].” This ensured accuracy and gave the reader enough context to make sense of the results on their own as well. The article was also considerably transparent, as the time period, sample size, and margin of error of the survey were all reported.
Despite these good points, the article still exhibited signs of malpractice. For one, some parts of the article incorrectly reported data, leading to it being distorted. An example of such would be this sentence, which shows a statistical tie:
“The highest proportion of those who know someone falsely summoned under Oplan Tokhang was in Metro Manila at 22 percent, followed by Visayas at 18 percent, and Mindanao and the rest of Luzon, both at 16 percent.”
Some parts also showed inaccurate comparisons, such as in this example:
“The same survey showed that one in every five Filipinos, or 17 percent, know someone who was summoned under the government’s Oplan Tokhang even if they were not drug pushers.”
This particular item is slightly complex because one in five would mean 20% or slightly above, and with the margin of error the percentage who relate to the given situation is between 14-20%. The accuracy of the “one in five” remark is, thus, unsure, and should not have been included in the article. Additionally, unlike the previously stated survey item, the question was not completely mentioned here.
It is also unclear as to why the study was reported several months after it was conducted. This then casts doubt on which portions of the study were published, along with how it was framed. The study also failed to report the response rate of the survey, which results in an unclear picture of exactly how many respondents there were.