Krugman:Triumph of the Chart, Vox interview with President Obama

[cal04]

I’ve been behind the curve on the Vox interview with President Obama. But the reactions to that interview — not just from the right, but from centrists — are remarkable. Jack Schafer compares it to a Scientology recruitment film; Rich Lowry compares it to Leni Riefenstahl. Why?

First, read the transcript while ignoring the infographics. It’s a generally friendly, sympathetic interview — but that’s hardly unusual, and it’s nothing like the actually fawning interviews that were standard in the Bush years. So what sets these guys off? Well, it’s those charts and numbers, illustrating the points Obama is making.
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript

So, is this propaganda? I don’t seem to remember a lot of charts and data in Triumph of the Will. It would be propaganda if the charts were misleading, or if they were empty visual flourishes. But they’re neither of those things. In part one, on domestic policy, they’re pretty much the standard charts anyone uses to illustrate the issues surrounding inequality and health care, and aren’t cooked at all. Nor are they just eye candy — I know all this stuff, but most readers don’t.

Yes, the charts are generally supportive of what Obama is saying, but only because the facts he alludes to are indeed facts.

more at link
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/triumph-of-the-chart/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=0

[Cary]

1. "... the facts he alludes to are indeed facts."

"Conservatives" are not swayed by facts. They oppose President Obama no matter what. Six years into President Obama's tenure they don't even know why they oppose him any more, that is if they ever really had a reason. They are focused on undermining and destroying President Obama and they will do that any way they can including undermining and destroying WE, THE PEOPLE.

I have been criticized here at DU for stating this. There was a time when it was fashionable to believe that some kind of rapprochement with teabaggers was possible and desirable. I have no use for "I told you so." I am not interested in being correct just for the sake of being correct. I am interested in defeating "conservatives" because they're fascists. They are a thought virus. They are treasonous. They are profoundly stupid and malicious and any concession to them, whether on substance or on the idea that both sides are bad, is simply appeasement.

We do need to squabble amongst ourselves but we need an united front against "conservatives." Both sides are not the same. Democrats certainly aren't perfect. I don't agree with all that President Obama has done but he has been a good if not near great president. I will not concede anything to "conservatives." Not now. Not ever.

[pampango]

3. I was just going to quote and post the same thing. When liberals base policy on facts and history,

it flummoxes the media and angers conservatives who do not rely on facts but on fear and emotion.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Sooner or later the pressure of all the lies will be too much and the traditional media are going to

have to report on facts.

The Vox and Buzzfeed interviews were essentially ignored by the traditional media out of spite and petulance and the ghastly exposure of their own lack of news reporting.

The traditional media stands in the way of so many things America needs to do, one of them is not a Koch pipeline, one of them is national security,maybe the media could report on that once they are over their lack of attention and respect tantrum?

You earn respect and trust by...earning it.

[Fred Sanders]

2. The traditional media is apoplectic about Obama purposely skirting them. One word...BrianWilliams.

[Android3.14]

5. I was expecting misleading charts

You know, those charts that only how the top edge of a bar graph to make it appear like big changes occurred when if you saw the entire bar graph, you'd see it was relatively minor change.

Happily, I was wrong in my assumption.

The GOP (moreso than most Democrats) hate facts that contradict their prejudice.

[Fred Sanders]

7. If one were strangely expecting Obama to use misleading graphs one would not know Obama very well.

[Android3.14]

8. Oh, perhaps. Then perhaps not.

From a previous State of the Union address

Politicians messing with charts to enhance the message they want people to take away is a bipartisan practice.

That's why i was pleasantly surprised to see the ones from the OP to be fairly straightforward.

[gcomeau]

9. Since it says in big bold letters...

"LOWEST SINCE 1994"... not lowest ever... not "omg look how low emissions are"... that chart shows exactly what it is up front about showing. Please explain how it was "messed with" in any manner you could reasonable take offense at?

[Android3.14]

11. This is 8th grade data manipulation

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Most middle school math classes have a section on consumer awareness in which they show how businesses and politicians manipulate viewers without actually presenting incorrect data.

The y-axis begins at 5000, which enhances the impression that the change, and then return to 1994 levels, in emissions was more dramatic than it actually was.

[gcomeau]

12. The idea that axes must always be displayed full range...

...even when the point being illustrated has no bearing on what the full range of that axis is, is certainly an idea that would be at home in the 8th grade.

[Android3.14]

13. For your edification

As you can see, we have a long way to go with regards to CO2.

Have a good day.

[gcomeau]

14. Yes, and????

The graph was given to support the claim that the levels are the lowest since 1994. NO CLAIM was associated with the graph that tried to argue that those levels had reached historical lows or anything else of the kind.

The graph was entirely suited to the purpose of honestly illustrating the truth of the statement made. The end.

[Android3.14]

15. I tried

I've had students in the past that simply refuse to accept the evidence in front of their faces. 'Sokay. Willful ignorance has lost its ability to frustrate me.

Be seeing you.

[gcomeau]

16. Oh I saw you trying.

You failed because your point wasn't valid.


You have yet to explain how the graph was misleading. Throwing up the longer ranged graph and saying "See! We have a long way to go! See!? SEE!?!?" doesn't mean anything when NOBODY WAS ARGUING WE DIDN'T HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.


Do you seriously not understand that?


Now if anyone had so much as implied that "emissions are at the lowest levels since 1994 so woohoo! We're FINISHED! Mission accomplished!" Then you could argue the graph was misleading. But nobody was saying that were they?

[freshwest]

6. At last, Obama gets to talk to people with working brains!

If only we could get this kind of interview on M$M, the nation would be at peace, domestically and in foreign policy.

Thanks, cal04.

[LittleGirl]

10. Such a great read

I'll tell you something here, our President is one smart guy and I am very proud to have him leading our country. He makes complete sense in this review of topics and as someone that lives abroad now, I can say that I totally respect his point of view. The American media is a disgrace to the people to find fault with anything he explains here. Well Done Mr. President. Proud to have voted for you twice and no one in my lifetime will ever match his intelligence.