Aug 14 2012

How to Lie With Infographics

Categories:

My old friend Wes Ellsberry catches the Weekly Standard and Republicans in Congress using infographics to completely distort the truth in an article about the number of people receiving some kind of federal assistance. By manipulating the starting point, the infographic makes it look as though the number of people receiving benefits had quadrupled since Obama took office:

So Wes redid the chart, with the bars in actual proportion to one another, showing that the increase has been rather gradual and not at all alarming — especially in light of the terrible economic conditions since 2007.

And the numbers are actually even less disturbing when you factor in population growth during that time.

This post has no tag

16 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1

Randomfactor

August 14, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Fox did something similar with a graph the other day which should’ve shown a 13-percent increase in some quantity–can’t recall at the moment what–but the bars made it look like it was up nearly 500 percent.

In some cases it may be stupidity rather than malice–Microsoft Excel, fed the data, tends to produce bar charts like the top one by default.

But “any sufficiently-advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.”
2

mountaintiger

August 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

I think this falls into this category.
3

Area Man

August 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Also, how the balls do they come up with 100 million Americans on “welfare”? About 4.3 million people receive TANF, which is the program that is commonly referred to as Welfare. There are another 46 million, about half of them children, who receive SNAP (“food stamps”). We’re still nowhere close to 100 million.

It appears that they inflate the number by counting every person in a household where one recipient gets assistance. They must also be throwing in Head Start, Pell Grants and who knows what else.
4

raven

August 14, 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

It wouldn’t be surprising to see an increase in federal assistance in the last few years.

The Bush Catastrophe resulted in the Great Recession.

People lose their jobs and run out of money during recessions. That is what a recession is.

If the Weekly Standard and the Tea Party want to know why unemployment is very high and the economy isn’t moving, just look in the mirror and then at a picture of George Bush.
5

Modusoperandi

August 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Area Man “Also, how the balls do they come up with 100 million Americans on ‘welfare’? About 4.3 million people receive TANF, which is the program that is commonly referred to as Welfare. There are another 46 million, about half of them children, who receive SNAP (‘food stamps’). We’re still nowhere close to 100 million.”
“Welfare” is everything people I don’t like get. Unless I get it, in which case I’ll deny that I get it and, if proven that I get it…well, I earned it. And then tomorrow, when I complain about “those people” on welfare, we can have this exact same argument over again.
You think mere facts can topple my wall of bitter ignorance and malevolent resentment, that a good counter-argument can beat three hours a day of Limbaugh, a TV always turned to FoxNews, and decades of race-baiting/poor-baiting? Ten times no!
6

Randomfactor

August 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Probably school lunches (and breakfasts) are counted too.
7

D. C. Sessions

August 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

It appears that they inflate the number by counting every person in a household where one recipient gets assistance.

Don’t forget EITC and unemployment insurance. For any part of the period in question.
8

raven

August 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

If you throw in tax breaks, tax loopholes, and tax deductions, just about everyone gets “welfare”. Especially the rich, the corporations, and, notably the churches and Mitt Romney.
9

d cwilson

August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

I almost guarantee that farm subsidies are not included, though, because those are vital programs supporting our ~~corporate~~ family farms.
10

frog

August 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

They’re probably including Social Security, too.
11

zmidponk

August 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Area Man #3:

Also, how the balls do they come up with 100 million Americans on “welfare”?

You’re forgetting – when it makes Obama look bad, everyone who receives so much as a single cent from the government is on ‘welfare’. However, if Obama were to propose, say, reducing or eliminating any of that money going to large companies and/or rich people, that’s also bad, because then he’s ‘punishing American success’.
12

AsqJames

August 14, 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

frog,

(…)the committee states, the figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare.

My emphasis.

BTW, it’s not just the y-axis that’s misleading…a little more detail from the linked article:

Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large–and growing–chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. “Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011,” says the Senate Budget Committee. “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade.”

Wait a minute, the graph shows Q1 2009 to Q2 2011, why are you talking about the increase since 2000? If those are the figures you’re talking about why doesn’t the y-axis cover the Bush II years? And we’re in Q3 2012, is Q2 2011 really the last period you have data for?

Also, bonus points for further muddying the waters by switching from claimant count to $ spending for projections into the future. So SNAP spending is expected to reach $800 billion – what is it now? What level of claimant count is that projecting? Is that figure inflation adjusted? Because if it is that could even represent a fall in actual claimants.
13

Area Man

August 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

I almost guarantee that farm subsidies are not included, though, because those are vital programs supporting our ~~corporate~~ family farms.

They’re also not means tested. Millionaires get farm subsidies. A Federal assistance program is only wrong if it goes to poor people.
14

thisisaturingtest

August 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

There also this from the article:

Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large–and growing–chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. “Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011,” says the Senate Budget Committee. “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade.”

There’s no link in the article to the actual Senate site, and the article itself is so vague as to who’s actually included as to be meaningless (just BIG SCARY NUMBERS!!! OMFG!!!), so I can’t be sure, but…it would seem to me that there would be a lot of overlap between all these groups. Are they counting the same folks twice? IOW- it’s not “Over 100 million people receiving benefits”- it’s 100 million benefits being received. But you can bet the DC is counting on a readership that will say something like “1 in 3 Americans are getting welfare! OMG!!!”
Anyway, what kind of idiot looks at something like this and just says, “ooooh, look at the pretty bars! I knew it!” without looking at the numbers on the sides?
Oh, ok- never mind. As for what kind of idiot produces it- I see the name “Jeff Sessions” pretty prominently there at the bottom.
15

joseph

August 14, 2012 at 6:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

I watched the News Hour on PBS last night. A member of the Heritage Foundation made the same arguments that the Weekly Standard and the Republicans In Congress made, but verbally instead.

The Heritage Foundation regularly makes false statements about environmental laws and science when it finds them inconvenient. It’s the same story with public assistance programs.
16

patsure

October 28, 2012 at 9:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Very Intresting post!
cheers!
pat testing