my responses, point by point:

I think charts should be more or less square, any scaling to accomplish that is fine with me.

You are right, those two grafs are not apples to apples. One is about the number of apples and the other is about the relative number of apples (yield) compared to the size of the trees. The shape of the curves will be different if the tree size changes or if the yield of apples from the trees changes (it could be flatter or it could be taller). So its not a big deal to squish the axis of one of the graphs since we have already acknowledged we are not comparing apples to apples. Now, had Fox decided to use a Logarithmic y-axis that would be grounds for you going into apopleptic shock.

The change to % is no more accurate than the previous graph, it is just, probably, somewhat more relevant depending on for what you are using the figures. If you want to know the size of programs necessary to deal with the unemployed you would probably want to look at the first graph but if you want to get a feel for the relative impact on the labour force you’d look at the second.

“don’t try to snow me” – who was doing that? Pelosi with her sky is falling chart or Fox with his well it’s not that far our of line with earlier recessions in relative terms? Neither, both are true and you seemed clear on the differences from the git go so I don’t think there is a snow job at work here.

As for each graph telling the story that their creator wanted to push forward, well that is a compliment. A good graph should support the story the person is telling, would you have preferred if Fox presented a graphs of the relative number of morans to lizard people in the GOP?

each tells the story their creator wanted to push forward (their ‘agenda’)

However, Fox had an extra data set to accomodate further down on the y-axis (the “July ’81″ data set) which should have stretched his y-axis out more, the fact that his graph is actually “squishier” is thus all the more suspicious.

Obviously what’s needed here is a new US regulation stipulating that all public graphs must be of a standard dimension, say height of 5 and width of 7 (5×7). Then we could prosecute both Pelosi for issuing a non-standard 6×7 chart and Fox for issuing a non-standard 4×7 chart.

Good grief.

I animated it yesterday and sent it in to jbc. 20 minutes including a second rev because I forgot a label.

When you ‘refute’ someone’s graf and then induce a distortion of the data – like say squeezing the all important y axis down to approx 60% of where it should be to have an apples to apples comparison – you undermine your case from the get go.

I realize his numbers are different because they are job loss as a percentage of total pop., (instead of raw # of job losses) but inducing so large a distortion isn’t playing the game on the up n up. Both charts tell their story to the advantage of the teller. I suppose it is up to the skeptical reader to assimilate the data and make their own judgement.

I think “omfg!” is about right.

You raise very interesting points though. I guess she’s just all over the f’n place!

Nancy’s story is even simpler: the last two recessions were shallow and long, now get off your ass, compromise and let’s get some yummy deficit spending going to prop up our economy in the short term. Or in short: omfg!

I should just animate it in Flash so folks could see it clearly.

If anything, she’s not far left enough (if by left you mean supports the constitution and civil liberties).

Both charts are telling a story, they are just different stories. Both ‘distort’ the information to make their case. I like having all of Justin’s datapoints/lines to compare, but he massively undermines his case by distorting the Y axis to make things look better. I sent some pics to jbc and considered animating them so we can compare apples to apples (which is definitely NOT the case right now).

And yeah, we haven’t come anywhere close to the bottom yet. It will be years before we can undo the bush era failures.

Yes, that was quite a show. Now, please return to your seats because that was just the warm up act.

The REAL show is about to begin. Fasten your seat belts and do not look down. This is not like any show you have seen before: this time the bottom is not in sight. You will know it when you hit it.

Thank you for your support and for signing the liability waivers upon entry.

You want the other trend lines so that we can be more accurate? fine, more data = more accurate picture

Can I ask what the vector of change is right now? are job losses accelerating or decelerating? how does this compare to the Great Depression? The crash of 1857? can we see the Clinton job boom #s? what? you can’t answer those questions? well then your charts aren’t accurate enough etc etc. It will be interesting to see these two graphs in 3 months, then 6, then a year.

I don’t think ‘completely dishonest’ is completely accurate jbc.
your mileage obviously differs

But by all means let us keep quibbling about the details while Rome burns.
I am enjoying the fiddle music so!

They should get moving on this.