This is such a great example of lying with statistics. I know that it was not deliberate, which is why the lie is so effective. Even the teller believes it to be true.
Although I never underestimate human stupidity or laziness for misrepresentation of numbers/statistics/etc, it's usually some poor SME that writes the report, and then the Manager sees the "60%", freaks out, asks the SME to rewrite making it softer, and thus the truth is (given a serious effort to be hidden).
I've been writing audit, security, and other reports a big part of my life. I tend to write numbers in the form of "5 out of 100 X (5%) examined, regarding the Y process, failed due to..". It freaks out anyone who reads my reports, but, hey, they pay me for accuracy and truth. Once I send it (and it's 'untouched' on my Sent Items), they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they put THEIR names & signatures in the bottom if they change a single word (sorry for the cynicism but there exists no corporate hill that I want to die on) - also you never know when a regulator will come back 6.5 years later and ask about THAT job scheduler that was transferring £€$5bn per day between X-system and Y-system.
I cannot recount the AMOUNT of times my report has 'softer' writing in the end, and it's their prerogative. But "it's not deliberate"????? No way in hell!!! Manager --> Director --> C-suite --> Audit Committee --> Regulator. EVERYONE will change a couple of words, and instead of a dumpster fire (Red) it will end up being Yellow.
Maybe there should be official guidelines for stats communication that require a certain level of legalise-like specify. No more "there is no evidence for.." of the sci world.
