Empirically researched data would be better - if people went and read the study in detail and saw that the questions asked don't lead to the conclusion that they claim, such as this case. They read a headline or check a sheet of numbers and think they understand the world.
Since people are apparently unable to do that, talking to people is the next best thing.
If people are unable to get the results from a study, but get confused by a headline, what makes you think they’ll be able to draw correct statistical conclusions from talking to a couple of people with inherent bias and small sample size?
People are social creatures, and if they see first hand that the world doesn't match their expectations, it might get them to think about it in more detail.
Since people are apparently unable to do that, talking to people is the next best thing.