Comments on: Media Coverage of Federal Spending

By: Quasi

Quasi — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:32:59 +0000

Ahem, this is quite late, but aside from the valid points on the somewhat-misleading data representation in these pictures, why are we making the assumption that percentage of dollars spent on a budget item should translate directly to percentage of words spent on covering this area in the news?

One obvious example would be health, which obviously took more space out of media airtime during 2009 – not because of arbitrary reasons like “we spend more or less money on it”, but because the healthcare system was rightfully receiving a lot of attention due to the Obama administration plans for it.

Ultimately, I think that this comparison is meaningless since it fails to establish why we would want to hear more about areas in which we spend more money.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:34:43 +0000

I agree. I can’t even get them to a size that I can easily read!
I bet Junk Charts (another website I visit that looks at inadequate graphs) will be all over this soon…

However, I do find Gwen’s point quite truthful. Unfortunately, broadcasting stories to a volume in tune to the actual usage of federal dollars does not always generate the maximum-sized audience.

By: Gwen

Gwen — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:27:45 +0000

My irritation is actually at a public library that I believe is trying to keep people from staying there very long, which I suspect is to discourage certain groups from using it as a place to stay during the day. They have outlets everywhere; they just won’t let you use them. I saw them try to tell a man the bathroom wasn’t working when I knew it was. I’ve seen this there a few other times. They seem to actively deny services to patrons. This is a small thing fir me. I suspect there are groups who find being denied a bathroom much more unpleasant.

I was also, for the record, rather laughing at my own Internet addiction and the level of service I take for granted, which was your point. And no, I don’t think i will sign a contract and pay for Internet service at my grandmas farm so I can use it 2 weeks a year.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:05:17 +0000

No time for commentary, laptop’s about to die. I have to drive 30 miles each way to get internet access…and there’s nowhere to plug in! Have you ever heard of such madness????

Yes. It’s the case in large parts of the world. I suppose, then, that the rest of the world is just “mad”, right? What a nice example of a first-world privileged viewpoint so easily packaged into a casual throw-away line. “Oh, no! Difficulty in getting onto the Internet! Such madness!!!!”

… and if memory serves, you’ve had the same problem in the past when you visited your folks in OK. And you had the same reaction. If you know that this will be a problem that you will be having; one that you don’t want to have; and one that you might be able to fix, then why not fix it? Is the OK such a backwater as not to have access to cable internet, DSL, satellite, or cellphone-based access?

By: Media Coverage of Federal Spending | Free Market Mojo

Media Coverage of Federal Spending | Free Market Mojo — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:31:56 +0000

[…] Gwen Sharp has posted a series of interesting images showing the “mismatch between what the federal government spends money on and what the media cover.” […]

By: Raegal

Raegal — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:03:34 +0000

It looks like viewing these graphs in small size does them a disservice, but I think the point of these are to inform in an artistic way. This is pretty interesting. Information driven art. And by what they had to say, it looks like they are exploring new ways of visualizing data. I support that idea because the common ways of portraying data today are typically uninteresting and boring. It made me look at and think, which a bar graph won’t do.

By: md

md — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:49:59 +0000

Isn’t the point of a graph to clearly present data so that it can be easily understood? This “graphs” are terrible.

By: Gwen

Gwen — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:24:12 +0000

I was more interested in other areas of spending–like you said, the defense spending doesn’t really seem too mismatched compared to coverage. I think it’s a great illustration of how “spending” can mean very different things. I onlyhave Internet access through my iPhone today and can’t really go in and edit, so I can’t update the post. Sorry.

By: Nizam

Nizam — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:43:26 +0000

These graphs are exemplifying the same problem we had with the pyramid charts about the food subsidies a couple of weeks ago.

When the data is rendered in concentric circles, the relative proportions are squared, which throws off the actual quantitative relationship between the categories of spending.

By: Scapino

Scapino — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:41:02 +0000

Looks like the first graph is all artifact (I’m surprised they didn’t present contract involving overseas personnel, to distort the data even more; it’s pretty clear they had an agenda). The second graph has Defense on 4th on actual spending and 3rd on media coverage. Pretty close (and errs on the side of over-representation), not sure where the “mismatch” comes in.