Fox News basic math via their graphics

[emperus]

Are you so mentally deficient you need a scale to tell the difference between 6 and 7 million? The numbers were written there plain to see.

Remember, the "mentally deficient" are the core of Fox's viewership.

 

[JTsyo]

Uhm, that's assuming the origin on that graph is zero. The graph is unmarked, so a person versed in mathematics would assume the origin is set above zero, not that the creator of the graph is stupid.

ahh like stock tickers. I was considering logarithmic scales to excuse them.

 

[boomerang]

Are you so mentally deficient you need a scale to tell the difference between 6 and 7 million? The numbers were written there plain to see.

Exactly.

Count up in increments of 250,000 and the graph works out pretty close. Aarrgghh, there's a news network we can't control!!!!

 

[dank69]

Exactly.

Count up in increments of 250,000 and the graph works out pretty close. Aarrgghh, there's a news network we can't control!!!!

200,000 in case you are interested in facts, which we all know you are not.

 

[boomerang]

200,000 in case you are interested in facts, which we all know you are not.

Glad you put more thought into it. Gold star for you.

 

[MrPickins]

People that defend the graph are funny.

What was the point in scaling the graph in this way, other than to be visually misleading?

 

[boomerang]

People that defend the graph are funny.

That's curious because what I think is funny are control freaks that get their panties all in a twist over a fucking graph shown on a cable news network. What's even more curious is that I'll bet the overwhelming majority of people relate more to the actual numbers (you know, the ones in yellow at the top of the bars) than the height of the bars.

I guess this is the prog outrage of the day. Ho-hum.

 

[MrPickins]

What's even more curious is that I'll bet the overwhelming majority of people relate more to the actual numbers (you know, the ones in yellow at the top of the bars) than the height of the bars.

I actually find it to be the opposite. People (especially dumb people, such as those watching cable news) are more easily able to comprehend differences in large values with a visual representation than when presented the numbers.

But, what do I know? I only design user interfaces to assist users in understanding arbitrarily large data sets as a major part of my job.

I guess this is the prog outrage of the day. Ho-hum.

Finding something funny != outrage...

It's just another example of how news channels/sites from both sides of the issue attempt to spin facts.

 

[dank69]

Glad you put more thought into it. Gold star for you.

Not more thought, just proper thought. We both knew to take the difference between the numbers and divide that by the number of intervals. I did this properly. So, did you fail the count to 5 or the division of ~1M/5? I'm thinking the count to 5 was a bit too much for you to handle, since your answer is the same as if you divided by 4.

 

[boomerang]

I actually find it to be the opposite. People (especially dumb people, such as those watching cable news) are more easily able to comprehend differences in large values with a visual representation than when presented the numbers.

According to the Current Truth™ from no less than Obama himself, the large number was achieved. So, the problem with presenting a number for March 27th alongside a number that is the goal for March 31st that btw was achieved, (once again according to the Current Truth&#8482 is what now?

 

[shadow9d9]

How has Fox News damaged American society...by spinning and opposing everything liberals stand for? Is this really any different than liberal media spinning and opposing everything conservatives stand for? In your mind, one is deemed more wrong because it's less fragmented than the other? Is this now the "rational" basis for discerning what is right vs. what is wrong? It's as if all this is some kind of shit smelling contest where the self-perceived winner with the sweetest smelling shit (who freely twists the "rules" and "judges" accordingly) somehow feels justified in flinging the nastiest poo at the other in self-righteous glory. These folks constantly delude themselves into thinking they are the winners in this neverending "contest" and will never admit defeat...yet they don't understand what winning truly means and likely never will. God help us bear the stench.

There is no major "liberal" party in the US. Just the middle/right Democrats, who are to the right of every conservative party in every first world country, and the off the cliff wacko right Republicans.

More importantly, the fact that nutjobs like you can't admit what is OBVIOUSLY, to anyone with a brain(including Fox, since they issued a correction), shows just how much of a hack that you guys are. You should be ashamed of yourself. Time to look at yourself in the mirror and really reevaluate yourself. You are a laughing stock.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There is no major "liberal" party in the US. Just the middle/right Democrats, who are to the right of every conservative party in every first world country, and the off the cliff wacko right Republicans.

More importantly, the fact that nutjobs like you can't admit what is OBVIOUSLY, to anyone with a brain(including Fox, since they issued a correction), shows just how much of a hack that you guys are. You should be ashamed of yourself. Time to look at yourself in the mirror and really reevaluate yourself. You are a laughing stock.

Don't bother...DSF doesn't believe what you are saying. I posted just about the exact same argument (that our democrats are center right, and the GOP is far-right) and he outright denied it and still claims as you can see that the democrats are the liberal left.

Reality is tough concept for him apparently.

 

[Incorruptible]

There is no major "liberal" party in the US. Just the middle/right Democrats, who are to the right of every conservative party in every first world country, and the off the cliff wacko right Republicans.

More importantly, the fact that nutjobs like you can't admit what is OBVIOUSLY, to anyone with a brain(including Fox, since they issued a correction), shows just how much of a hack that you guys are. You should be ashamed of yourself. Time to look at yourself in the mirror and really reevaluate yourself. You are a laughing stock.

You support socialism and the violation of liberty and you have the nerve to tell others they should be ashamed of themselves?

Your ideology is totalitarian and idiotic and completely violates freedom. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being and should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Fern]

People that defend the graph are funny.

What was the point in scaling the graph in this way, other than to be visually misleading?

I would guess they cropped it so it fit on a TV screen. Cropping it shows the numbers larger and leaves room at the bottom for "Source HHS" and their logo and whatever news updates were scrolling. It seems to me the numbers are what is important. The example shown that is properly scaled doesn't seem as informative (no numbers etc.)

I don't understand what's supposed to be misleading? Is it that the late surge has been exaggerated by cropping the graph? If so, what's the significance of that? How is it 'bad' for Obamacare?

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no major "liberal" party in the US. Just the middle/right Democrats, who are to the right of every conservative party in every first world country, and the off the cliff wacko right Republicans.

More importantly, the fact that nutjobs like you can't admit what is OBVIOUSLY, to anyone with a brain(including Fox, since they issued a correction), shows just how much of a hack that you guys are. You should be ashamed of yourself. Time to look at yourself in the mirror and really reevaluate yourself. You are a laughing stock.

I'm not going to play semantics games with "you guys". If calling Democrats "liberal" makes me a "wacko" and a "nutjob" in your incredibly perverse opinion...then so be it. I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.

 

[MrPickins]

I would guess they cropped it so it fit on a TV screen. Cropping it shows the numbers larger and leaves room at the bottom for "Source HHS" and their logo and whatever news updates were scrolling. It seems to me the numbers are what is important. The example shown that is properly scaled doesn't seem as informative (no numbers etc.)

I don't understand what's supposed to be misleading? Is it that the late surge has been exaggerated by cropping the graph? If so, what's the significance of that? How is it 'bad' for Obamacare?

Fern

There is no reason the graph could not have been the same size, contain the same information and use appropriate scaling (with the x-axis along the bottom).

EDIT:

See?

/EDIT

The only explanation is that Fox News wanted to give the impression that the numbers were much farther apart than they really are.

I'm not sure why you're disputing this. It's a common trick used by the media all the time when they are trying to spin numbers to prove their point.

 

[boomerang]

The only explanation is that Fox News wanted to give the impression that the numbers were much farther apart than they really are.

Assuming they did that, what do you think they were trying to achieve? What is the end game for making the numbers look farther apart?

 

[dank69]

Assuming they did that, what do you think they were trying to achieve? What is the end game for making the numbers look farther apart?

So rubes like you can blab to your co-workers about what a failure Obamacare is. Essentially you guys are doing their work for them. Well not you specifically, since we know you are on the RNC payroll, but your audience anyway.

 

[jman19]

I would guess they cropped it so it fit on a TV screen. Cropping it shows the numbers larger and leaves room at the bottom for "Source HHS" and their logo and whatever news updates were scrolling. It seems to me the numbers are what is important. The example shown that is properly scaled doesn't seem as informative (no numbers etc.)

I don't understand what's supposed to be misleading? Is it that the late surge has been exaggerated by cropping the graph? If so, what's the significance of that? How is it 'bad' for Obamacare?

Fern

This really is one of the lamest, weakest defenses of this obvious attempt to mislead that I've seen. Funny!

Anyway, pretty amusing to see both sides spinning out of control on this one.

 

[boomerang]

So rubes like you can blab to your co-workers about what a failure Obamacare is. Essentially you guys are doing their work for them. Well not you specifically, since we know you are on the RNC payroll, but your audience anyway.

What exactly, is wrong with you?

 

[dank69]

What exactly, is wrong with you?

So now everyone who doesn't agree with you has something wrong with them?

 

[MrPickins]

Assuming they did that, what do you think they were trying to achieve? What is the end game for making the numbers look farther apart?

To make it look as though fewer people had enrolled in the program (and that they might miss the Mar 31 target)?

I would have thought this would be obvious... :hmm:

 

[michal1980]

So now everyone who doesn't agree with you has something wrong with them?

just like everyone that disagrees with you works for the RNC.

 

[MrPickins]

This really is one of the lamest, weakest defenses of this obvious attempt to mislead that I've seen. Funny!

Anyway, pretty amusing to see both sides spinning out of control on this one.

What's sad is that Fern is too smart to make that kind of argument. (Or at least, that's what I would have thought...)

just like everyone that disagrees with you works for the RNC.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[boomerang]

So now everyone who doesn't agree with you has something wrong with them?

Right now, I'm just suspecting you. There is a minimal amount of logic in your post and the sentences, when strung together, are a curious mix of thoughts.

"So rubes like you can blab to your co-workers about what a failure Obamacare is."
If I was in fact blabbing to my co-workers, what would the significance of that be? Would it affect signups? Is the free speech aspect an issue for you? Why would people sharing their thoughts be distressing to you?

"Essentially you guys are doing their work for them."
Who is them and what work is being performed?

"Well not you specifically, since we know you are on the RNC payroll, but your audience anyway."
This sounds a lot like paranoia. Which leads me right back to my question for which you have pretty much affirmed the validity.

What exactly, is wrong with you?