If the research doesn’t say what you want, just lie about it

I consider myself something of an experienced researcher, having turned my hand to research for a number of years now. So I know quite a bit about research wherein the data are entirely manipulated to achieve the desired results and outcomes.

Amanda Marcotte reported recently on this piece of research which was published in the Telegraph which in turn claimed that women who dress provocatively are more likely to be raped. (It should be noted that the author of the research did not intend for this to happen and does deserve sympathy for the way her work was misconstrued.)

Now, it's interesting that the Telegraph page no longer exists (and leads one to question why) but Marcotte fortunately provides the first paragraph of the then piece for us:

Yes, that's right. We're still blaming women for their own rapes. That's certainly the kind of thinking that the Telegraph wants to promote.

As it transpired, this research was criticized heavily for being presumptuous and unscientific, while the results were found to be statistically insignificant (at least in terms of the claims being made by the Telegraph). But that didn't stop the Telegraph running the now-removed story, of course. I mean, if you have an agenda, you're always going to find a piece of research to manipulate with the intention of furthering said agenda. And boy does the Telegraph have an agenda.

Marcotte may have exaggerated for effect when she said the following, but she has a point:

Edit: Here is some detail on what happened to the Telegraph piece. It seems the criticism they received about the piece's inaccuracies led them to remove it. Perhaps this is 'something' but I'm still inclined to question their motives for printing the inaccuracies to begin with.