Today In Dishonest Fox News Charts

Clearly Fox is merely pointing out that some instances of the same number are more equal then others.

No argument there. The Faux chart has a fabricated data point. That being said, the MMFA chart uses a substantially shorter Y-axis scale (8.6 - 9.2), thus the drop in unemployment looks more dramatic. MMFA corrects Faux data point but "spins" their side with a BLS chart that is on a completely different scale than the Fox chart.

If they want to be fair, MMFA would have kept the same scale but simply corrected the data point. The data point is wrong, not the 8 - 10% scale that Fox uses, yet MMFA changed the scale around trying to demonstrate a steep drop in unemployment (at least visually).

No, both charts used the same time frame. Apparently you are unable to read a chart. I realize the faux chart is prettier and as such more appealing to the ignorant.

I understand that. This is a red delicious apple, fresh off the tree, compared to a road apple from a horse on the other side of the planet after that road apple has festered for a long timeunder the watchful gaze of the fecal news network.

Seeing this again, my statement was ambiguous

Seeing this again, your statement was pompous, condescending, and wrong.

Use this one, then adjust the date range to include only 2011.

MMfA got their chart from the BLS, to which I provided a link and instructions so you can see it for yourself above.

MMfA went to an external, unbiased source for this graphic, which was a chart that cannot be directly linked to. The y-axis is determined by the programming of the BLS website. I consider this more honest than providing a photochop of the Fox screenshot.

"they choose instead to offer a comparison which was way out of proportion to Fox's error."--JamesBond

You definitely argue that the chart is deceptive, and the chart is a BLS chart, unadulterated. You consider it deceptive because it doesn't look enough like the Fox chart. For better perspective, JamesBond, try comparing the Fox chart (transformed from the original BLS data by a Fox writer/producer into funhouse mirror graphic) to the BLS chart (which involves people whose job is to present accurate information) instead of the other way around.

You tried so hard to explain that MMfA has a political agenda based on a correct chart, tried to pretend that MMfA sees a 0.4% drop as a lot in one month when JamesBond decides it shouldn't be considered a lot. Regarding the false equivalence of Fox ideology to MMfA ideology, my explanation to bootyprof/JamesBond below. JamesBond pretends that MMfA presents a socio-political agenda that is anti-Fox instead of the truth, which is that MMfA presents Fox misinforming again.

Regarding just the charts, you worry about the slope of the line from one data point to the next. Weak. The MMfA comparison is directly proportional to Fox's error. The BLS chart shows a line from 9.0 to 8.6 such that you see a negative slope. The Fox chart shows a zero slope from 9.0 to 9.0, with the last point labeled "8.6". The change would correctly be -0.4%/month on both charts, but you worry about how the lines would look graphically, the slope of the lines between two points. JamesBond uses Fox's chart as the reference to the correct way to view unemployment figures, because the slope of the lines is apparently agreeable.

And that is only the beginning of the problem with your bogus argument. Here's another hint: I could take the Fox chart and squish it from 5 inches wide to 2 inches wide. Same design, same x/y-axis range, but greater slopes between points, which would apparently be exaggerated according to you. Still a Fox chart. Get it yet?

Oh, MAN, I wish ScienceBuff were here..great fodder.

JamesBond, you bailed on explaining a "mere" 4/10ths. Why that adjective? Based on what?

James, I guess you are going to have to forgive MMFA for foolishly believing that everyone here has a middle school education. You have proven them wrong.

It's a point of scale. If the chart was between 0% and 100%, it'd look something like this. Still accurate and not inherently wrong, but it is deceptive.

The scale should be from as close to the lowest figure to as close to the highest figure as possible.

You are correct, of course. Your photoshopped version of Faux's chart is clear and accurate. In it, the drop from 9.0 to 8.6% looks properly significant, but it doesn't exaggerate the effect of a 0.4% drop.
I'm glad about the drop to 8.6%. But with underemployment and long-term unemployment still high, it's clear that this economy still has quite a ways to go yet. If the next month's stats show unemployment at 8.2% (a continuation of the previous month's drop), then I'll start feeling optimistic. Maybe.

Bingo! All this talk of point of scale! As long as you know how to accurately read a chart, who gives a rat's patoot? Fox put the last data point, 8.6%, in the wrong place. And, knowing Fox's propensity to mislead, there's a 99.9% probability that it was done intentionally. I don't give it a 100% chance because the existence of stupid must always be acknowledged and given consideration.

Exactly. Has nothing to do with the scale, etc. It has to do with the way the graph was presented with 8.6 being placed at a higher level than 8.8. The graph was blatantly tweaked in order to present a false image.

The issue of incorrectly plotting the 8.6 data point, that's settled. No interpretation.

Which is more representative, the Fox-style chart, which Chameo corrected, or the BLS chart? Same data. That's the debate that ensued. JamesBond says the BLS chart is misleading, the Chameo chart isn't, which points to the core of the BS. I contend that it is worth addressing that question, because to address only that question is myopic.