I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy like the guy you replied to, but it’s generally considered correct to include 0 on graphs like this to show proper scale. If I had submitted a paper with this graph in grad school, all of my reviewers would have kicked it back.
If you want to get technical, it’s only standard math if there’s a symbol indicating the scale doesn’t start at 0. Data is used like this all the time to misrepresent reality and yes, it’s considered “normal” to do things that way.
Graphs are ususally adjusted to what they should convey or often to mislead people, I agree. in this case however I personally think the important info is that the amount of casualties is back to where it was 40+ Years ago, not the absolute numbers.
This data is not beautiful; it’s propaganda. There is no reason for the y axis to not start at 0.
Why have a big gap underneath the graph? It is totally normal to adjust the axis to fit the data. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s standard math.
I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy like the guy you replied to, but it’s generally considered correct to include 0 on graphs like this to show proper scale. If I had submitted a paper with this graph in grad school, all of my reviewers would have kicked it back.
If you want to get technical, it’s only standard math if there’s a symbol indicating the scale doesn’t start at 0. Data is used like this all the time to misrepresent reality and yes, it’s considered “normal” to do things that way.
Graphs are ususally adjusted to what they should convey or often to mislead people, I agree. in this case however I personally think the important info is that the amount of casualties is back to where it was 40+ Years ago, not the absolute numbers.
50% less fatalities is propaganda?
Fewer