When the data contradicts every single bit of research done by Arbitron, Nielsen, Tapscan, Edison, Coleman, Jacobs Media, Bridge Research, and every other broadcast research company and proprietary studies done by stations themselves as well as the effectiveness studies done by some agency accounts, then the data is bogus.
Some of the bad data is just the product of ignorance or covert racism like calling "Spanish" a format or referring to Urban stations as "r&b" and not distinguishing between the different kinds of African American and Hispanic targeted stations.
And some is just plain stupid, like calling CHR stations primarily teen and 18-24 stations when the bulk of the audience is among 18-49 or 18-49 women and the stations in that format research against young adult women and don't even pay attention to teens. And the ratings, going back decades and decades and thorough at least 10 different ratings companies confirm this.
Those format descriptions and profiles were put together without any sense of reality by PR companies trying to look knowledgeable to potential clients. They are not based on research and likely come from "best guessing" by someone on the staff with little or no broadcast experience.
Defending absolutely, totally and disgustingly inaccurate data is like believing the earth is flat, that the moonwalk was done in a TV studio and the holocaust never happened.