|
[QUOTE=Trades;4276200]Do you really think that it is such an amazing twist to have the graph with a mistake like that, intentional or otherwise? Sure it looks great on the non-fox graph with the tight range. That .4% looks like a huge change! Using that tight a range to exaggerate the drop and not having the numbers over the data points is just as bad as the error on the Fox one, IMO, because most sheeple will just say WOW look how much it dropped without looking at the actual numbers.
I would like to hear what they were saying when they were showing this graph. I think it would help us understand their intent if we had the whole picture.
Amateurish? Sure! Deceitful? Meh, I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
I had the same thought. It's considered bad form in statistics to plot using a limited y-axis range for precisely the reasons you stated... it exaggerates effects and suggests significant change when it likely does not exist. If there were no numbers on the chart, I would be more suspicious of fraudulent presentation. But the numbers make the graphing error clear within the chart.
|