Fox strikes again. /facepalm

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

Also, the slope between 9.0% and 8.9% is greater than the slope between 8.9% and 8.8%.  So, too, the slope between 9.1% and 9.2% is also greater than the slope between 9.0% and 9.1%.

Over at FlowingData, you can see that the graph looks like when the line is drawn properly (http://flowingdata.com/2011/12/12/fox-news-still-makes-awesome-charts/ ). That page also has a link to the BLS page on unemployment, and you can download the data there (going all the way back to 1948).

you could go straight to their BLS source and get the real data. Here is an non-crazily scaled version and the FOX version side by side:

http://bit.ly/utklyB

haha, the 8.6 is equal the the 9.0 right next to it...how dumb do you have to be?

Two sources of non-news: Fox and MSNBC

Using a ruler, it is higher than the 9%. Fox stole good news from the American  people, news that needs to be heard, especially this time of year. They know people are only going to look at the end of the graph. 

here is a google docs version, with their y-axis bounds of 8-10
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApJroHQ6ZaKXdG5ZcTZiNVBuejRXWGxLQVIxdGxGd0E&hl=en_US#gid=1

Like the rest of you, I think Fox News (and pretty much all other news) radically frames and reshapes the information it gives us. However, the only major error on this graph is the last dot (albeit, the slopes between the first three points are slightly skewed, but this could be because the numbers are not exactly 9.0, 8.9, 8.8 and plotted to a greater accuracy than displayed). The final dot is likely just a simple error. Statistics are widely abused and manipulated in complex and astounding ways - this is just not a very good example of that.

Pretty terrible.  I'd blame a lazy graphic artist more than malicious misstatement of data, I've seen a lot of people who edit text on charts or graphs with new numbers after the chart is already built because they don't have time to go back or access to the original program to update the chart properly.

Yup. The last point of the plot is clearly wrong.
Is this somehow a mistake or is it a purposeful manipulation?

There are think tank interns who don't get paid to turn out charts just like this.

Not to mention there is no zero point.

Not only is this graph weirdly inaccurate (and doesn't really seem to prove much of a point) it's hideously ugly.

Fox understands their viewership, the "low-information" voter. They do this all the time -- subtle manipulations that, if they get called on it, they can claim as a simple mistake. Except that they are not mistakes, they are calculated to provide disinformation.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but Fox clearly manipulates information and provides an inaccurate view to a segment of people that are easily manipulated and who use Fox as their only news source. Orwell lives.

Thank you, Mr. Livingston.  I have reblogged this at http://pedanticpoliticalponderings.blogspot.com/2011/12/repudiation-fox-news-fake-graph.html  I've also included a correct graph from Flowing Data.

Apparently, FOXNews can't even put things in the correct descending order of percentages:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/recuse-yourself-chris-wallace-ctd.html 

In the linked-to graphic, the GOP candidates are listed in (presumably) descending order of polled preference, with the title of the graphic "Paul Surges into Second in Iowa", with the following percentages (presented in order from left to right):

Gingrich: 22%
Paul:  23%
Romney: 16%
Bachmann: 11%
Perry: 9%
Santorum: 8%

I'm sorry, but in what world is 23% less than 22%?

Here is the Fox News graph with the data plotted over it in AutoCAD, scaled so that the accurate line pretty closely follows the original line from "JAN" to "OCT" (Roger Ailes's graph gets a little wombly that last month!):

There are think tank interns who don't get paid to turn out charts just like this.

Call me at w W w.richsingleclub.C//o//m.I uploaded my hot photos on w W
w.richsingleclub.C//o//m  under the name
of jessicasingle.here u can know more about me .

Does anybody know what the accompanying commentary was to this? I'd be curious to know whether they voiced it over in a positive or negative way.

I've always thought that this approach is pretty smart in so many ways: it's easy to follow and understand, it can be adapted for a number of different brands and businesses, and it doesn't require a lot of time or money to set up. I usually explore https://masterbundles.com/graphics/icons/rounded/ source for downloading rounded icons. Plus, choosing something simple like this makes the message much more memorable than something fancy or complicated.

Graphic Design the Fox News Way is an exploration into how to design effective and memorable graphics for your company. Here you check this contact us and get more new tips for the latest construction. Graphic design is a specialized field that requires years of training and experience. Yet, through my research, I've found many companies take shortcuts in their graphic design process that leads to either a sub-par design or no design at all.