The point, which you don't seem to get, is nobody was deceived. I would bet that not one person that saw the graph was deceived, not even you!
I think it's fairly obvious that Fox deliberately tried to mislead the
CASUAL observer into believing that the unemployment rate had not decreased by the way their chart reads. After all, a chart really is just a "quick and dirty" way of defining hard numerical data. It's good for a quick glance, a
casual look, not much more.
Think about how misrepresentative of the average "citizen" we who discuss these issues here on the forum are. For the most part, we're more educated, have higher average income....I mean, come on guys, do you really think the average citizen can "target" a toy of the nature of the GT40? No way. We here on the forum are a very skewed representation of what variation there is within the political spectrum.
To that end, it has been my observation that the less educated tend to view things such as the Fox chart under discussion as a believable way to "understand" the information without having to investigate further. They go for the casual, quick 'n' dirty method of getting the information (and, keep in mind, if they are searching for their information on FN?N, they already have a skewed view of the world), generally accepting that it is accurate without delving deeper (read: looking at the numbers, as Tom et al are suggesting).
So, Tom, domtoni, et al, YOU are among what I believe to be the upper echelon of the "conservative" movement....well away from the rabid "Chicken Little" contingency that is arguing that the sky will fall unless Obama can be defeated in the next election.....YOU had the good sense and the temerity to look deeper than the geometry of the chart and read the numbers.
Really, though, how representative of the "conservative" movement do you think you are? I can assure you, having done cognitive and adaptive behavior testing for 25 years, the average person is nowhere near as "capable" as are all of you guys. The average person would look at that chart and just accept at face value that the unemployment situation is no better at the end of that line graph than it was at the point immediately preceding it....that's how they roll.
....but, then, it appears to me that FN?N really COUNTS on this tendency. While in college I studied Marshal McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message", a treatise on the use of medium to link subliminal messages to the form of medium used to present the material. In essence, what FN?N does is adopt the "lowest common denominator" in establishing their target audience.
There are mediums which can target the even less cognitively advantaged...cereal boxes, comic books, that sort of stuff. Don't believe me? Look at the Jehova's Witness literature that is handed out door-to-door and left in the laundromats these days...comic book format, searching for those easily led, impressionable "high-grade morons" (another of my mother's favorite verbalizations) who tend to believe anything as long as it is delivered in the medium they appreciate.
Not to hard to figure out what FN?N's "target" group is, is it?
You fellow forum members of the conservative persuasion who are protesting that Jim is fixated on the geometry of the graph are WAAAAY above the average FN?N viewer, I assure you...you had the good sense to look at the numbers (exactly as Jim did), so you understand it on a more cognitively active basis, but b/c you favor the general message FN?N delivers you aren't as incensed as is Jim at the intentional misrepresentation FN?N's "quick 'n' dirty" format provides. Jim is focusing on the immoral intent in the message, not so much the content as are you, Tom, domtoni, Pete, et al...so he is just as correct as are any of the rest of you, has looked at the numbers just as have you and understands them just as you do, he's just more focused on the "medium" which FN?N used to distort the information.
The average FN?N viewer will never get that far in their acquisition and use of the information, guys...believe it :idea: !
Cheers!!
Doug
