Kurzakov

Finally, a graph can't tell you much if you don't know the full significance of what's being presented.Both of the following graphs use the same ocean temperature data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.So why do they seem to give opposite impressions?The first graph plots the average annual ocean temperature from 1880 to 2016,making the change look insignificant.But in fact, a rise of even half a degree Celsius can cause massive ecological disruption.This is why the second graph,which show the average temperature variation each year,is far more significant.

A time range can be carefully chosen to exclude the impact of a major event right outside it.And picking specific data points can hide important changes in between.Even when there's nothing wrong with the graph itself,leaving out relevant data can give a misleading impression.This chart of how many people watch the Super Bowl each year makes it look like the event's popularity is exploding.But it's not accounting for population growth.The ratings have actually held steady because while the number of football fans has increased,their share of overall viewership has not.

When they're used well, graphs can help us intuitively grasp complex data.But as visual software has enabled more usage of graphs throughout all media,it's also made them easier to use in a careless or dishonest way.So the next time you see a graph,don't be swayed by the lines and curves.Look at the labels,the numbers,the scale,and the context,and ask what story the picture is trying to tell.

This chart showing the rise in American unemployment from 2008 to 2010 manipulates the x-axis in two ways.First of all, the scale is inconsistent,compressing the 15-month span after March 2009 to look shorter than the preceding six months.Using more consistent data points gives a different picture with job losses tapering off by the end of 2009.And if you wonder why they were increasing in the first place,the timeline starts immediately after the U.S.'s biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression.These techniques are known as cherry picking.

This is one of the most common ways graphs misrepresent data,by distorting the scale.Zooming in on a small portion of the y-axis exaggerates a barely detectable difference between the things being compared.And it's especially misleading with bar graphs since we assume the difference in the size of the bars is proportional to the values.But the scale can also be distorted along the x-axis,usually in line graphs showing something changing over time.

Yet, as it turns out, there are plenty of ways graphs can mislead and outright manipulate.Here are some things to look out for.In this 1992 ad, Chevy claimed to make the most reliable trucks in America using this graph.Not only does it show that 98% of all Chevy trucks sold in the last ten years are still on the road,but it looks like they're twice as dependable as Toyota trucks.That is, until you take a closer look at the numbers on the left and see that the figure for Toyota is about 96.5%.The scale only goes between 95 and 100%.If it went from 0 to 100,it would look like this.

A toothpaste brand claims their product will destroy more plaque than any product ever made.A politician tells you their plan will create the most jobs.We're so used to hearing these kinds of exaggerations in advertising and politics that we might not even bat an eye.But what about when the claim is accompanied by a graph?Afterall, a graph isn't an opinion.It represents cold, hard numbers,and who can argue with those?

Today, we are more free than ever from the old media gatekeepers who used to control the flow of information.But with freedom comes responsibility:the responsibility to curate our own experience and ensure that this flow does not become a flood,leaving us less informed than before we took the plunge.

Finally, and most importantly,try to verify news before spreading it.While social media has enabled the truth to reach us faster,it's also allowed rumors to spread before they can be verified and falsehoods to survivelong after they've been refuted.So, before you share that unbelievable or outrageous news item,do a web search to find any additional information or context you might have missed and what others are saying about it.

When you can't get the direct story,read coverage in multiple outlets which employ different reporters and interview different experts.Tuning in to various sources and noting the differences lets you put the pieces together for a more complete picture.It's also crucial to separate fact from opinion.Words like think, likely, or probably mean that the outlet is being careful or, worse, taking a guess.And watch out for reports that rely on anonymous sources.These could be people who have little connection to the story,or have an interest in influencing coverage,their anonymity making them unaccountable for the information they provide.

At the same time, the more chaotic the story,the less you should try to follow it in real time.In events like terrorist attacks and natural disasters,today's media attempts continuous coverage even when no reliable new information is available,sometimes leading to incorrect information or false accusations of innocent people.It's easy to be anxious in such events,but try checking for the latest information at several points in the day,rather than every few minutes,allowing time for complete details to emerge and false reports to be refuted.While good journalism aims for objectivity,media bias is often unavoidable.

So how do you get the truth, or something close?One of the best ways is to get the original news unfiltered by middlemen.Instead of articles interpreting a scientific study or a politician's speech,you can often find the actual material and judge for yourself.For current events, follow reporters on social media.During major events, such as the Arab Spring or the Ukrainian protests,newscasters and bloggers have posted updates and recordings from the midst of the chaos.Though many of these later appear in articles or broadcasts,keep in mind that these polished versions often combine the voice of the person who was there with the input of editors who weren't.

This breakdown of trust in media gatekeepers lead to alternative newspapers, radio shows, and cable news competing with the major outlets and covering events from various perspectives.More recently, the Internet has multiplied the amount of information and viewpoints,with social media, blogs, and online video turning every citizen into a potential reporter.But if everyone is a reporter, nobody is,and different sources may disagree,not only opinions, but on the facts themselves.

But the problems with this system soon became apparent as mass media spread.While it was known that authoritarian countries controlled and censored information,a series of scandals showed that democratic governments were also misleading the public,often with media cooperation.Revelations of covert wars, secret assassinations,and political corruption undermined public faith in official narratives presented by mainstream sources.

How do you know what's happening in your world?The amount of information just a click away may be limitless,but the time and energy we have to absorb and evaluate it is not.All the information in the world won't be very useful unless you know how to read the news.To your grandparents, parents,or even older siblings,this idea would have sounded strange.Only a few decades ago, news was broad-based.Your choices were limited to a couple of general interest magazines and newspaper of record,and three or four TV networks where trusted newscasters delivered the day's news at the same reliable time every evening.

For example, a joke article in the reputable British Medical Journal entitled Energy Expenditure in Adolescents Playing New Generation Computer Games,has been referenced in serious science publications over 400 times.User-generated content, such as wikis,are also a common contributer to circular reporting.As more writers come to rely on such pages for quick information,an unverified fact in a wiki page can make its way into a published article that may later be added as a citation for the very same wiki information,making it much harder to debunk.

For instance, the 1998 publication of a single pseudoscientific paper arguing that routine vaccination of children causes autism inspired an entire antivaccination movement,despite the fact that the original paper has repeatedly been discredited by the scientific community.Deliberately unvaccinated children are now contracting contagious diseases that had been virtually eradicated in the United States,with some infections proving fatal.In a slightly less dire example,satirical articles that are formatted to resemble real ones can also be picked up by outlets not in on the joke.

In previous decades, most media with global reach consisted of several major newspapers and networks which had the resources to gather information directly.Outlets like Reuters and the Associated Pressthat aggregate or rereport stories were relatively rare compared to today.The speed with which information spreads now has created the ideal conditions for a phenomenon known as circular reporting.This is when publication A publishes misinformation,publication B reprints it,and publication A then cites Bas the source for the information.It's also considered a form of circular reporting when multiple publications report on the same initial piece of false information,which then appears to another author as having been verified by multiple sources.

There's a quote usually attributed to the writer Mark Twain that goes,A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.Funny thing about that.There's reason to doubt that Mark Twain ever said this at all,thus, ironically, proving the point.And today, the quote, whoever said it,is truer than ever before.