"Recorded history" in the title refers to the period of history where the agency has been recording the numbers. It might not be the best phrasing, but it's not strictly untrue; the underwritten thesis (TB is on the rise) is still supported by the evidence.
"recorded history" sounds like it's how you divide pre-colonial Americas from modern (15th Century CE onward) Americas. For example, many weather features have been recorded in the Americas since 17th century CE. Does "recorded history" refer to only "[this particular metric's] recorded history"?
I agree that it's not the best term, but I don't think its so disqualifying that it makes the claim untrue: it's misleading at worst, and that imprecision only kinda interacts with the underlying claim.
I guess the better phrasing would be "Kansas tuberculosis outbreak is largest since (org) has been collecting data", which honestly doesn't change the implications for me.
Eh, "recorded history" is totally the wrong phrase.
When we say "recorded history" we don't mean "the window of time in which we have detailed records up to our modern standards", we specifically mean "the window of time in which we have records of any sort", contrasted with "prehistory".
The phrase they were looking for is "largest on record" or even better "largest since 195X".
> For broader world history, recorded history begins with the accounts of the ancient world around the 4th millennium BCE, and it coincides with the invention of writing.
EDIT: Downvote away, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who believes that "recorded history" is not incorrect and confusing usage here, with an explanation rather than a drive by vote.
If you read the article, it appears they've only been keeping records in Kansas since the 50's. And I think the headline is wrong: it's the biggest in Kansas's records. I could be mistaken about that.