The latest Bloomberg Businessweek makes the case that “in job creation, big is often better.” (That’s the print-version headline for this story.) The implication is that large companies are playing a larger role than smaller companies in helping the U.S. economy emerge from the depths of the Great Recession.

Two parts of the story raise red flags for this observer. First, the only person quoted is Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics, who has a proven record as a questionable news source. Second, and more troubling, is the primary statistic used to lead the story:

Small businesses account for the lion’s share of job growth, right? Well, not always. Since the U.S. economic recovery began in June 2009, big employers have increased employment 7.5 percent, while small employers have boosted payrolls by only 4.9 percent.

I’m not questioning the data, but it’s curious that the report does not follow up with actual numbers of jobs. How many jobs did the larger employers create during the time period in question? How many jobs did smaller employers create? How did the cited employment growth rates compare to previous four-year economic periods? Without these additional data points, it’s hard to say what the cited figures actually mean.