100 Words

Have you noticed lately how often news stories are accompanied by graphs? Since at least September, current events have been reported increasingly with the visual aid of a graph. OK, so maybe the economy being headline news since then has something to do with it: that's a subject that's all about numbers. Part of the trend is no doubt driven by a loss of confidence that words can communicate well enough to the public at large -- hence the ubiquitous YouTube video. A picture's worth a thousand words? Maybe that's discounted now, like everything else.

I'm finding that graphs are being presented to communicate a single concept, often with only a couple data points. Stock markets plunging! Unemployment rising! Lately I've even seen single-value 'graphs.' It's as if the author decided that readers/viewers can't understand the written numbers (regardless how few), so displays them graphically. And readers seem to be calling upon their middle-school math skills in interpreting them: the graph usually shows a title or caption explaining what they are supposed to see, and they dutifully find that message reflected in the graph. If it aids comprehension of a concept, OK. But....

It's troubling to me that our use of graphs is being dumbed down. Graphs are great tools to help organize lots of raw data for analysis. But then, you're supposed to interrogate the data displayed in a graph. Just about any set of data yields many observations -- and sometimes using alternate formats illuminates even more. Unlike the passive experience of reading, which encourages you to feel satisfied that you've understood something, analysis draws you past the initial, obvious relationships. I find it irritating to be told in advance what the graph is going to show me. It's a challenge, don't you think? Where's the relationship that the article isn't talking about... because, like Waldo, it's usually there, if only you had enough real data to interrogate.