Take back any benefit of the doubt you ever gave Fox News

[Perpetual Change]

Look at the graph again. According to Fox's perversion of the graph, current unemployment rate under Obama (8.6 percent) has been manipulated to look like it's higher than March's unemployment rate, even though Marches was actually higher by .2 percent.

[jsem]

Lolgraph

[Perpetual Change]

In other words (and I just did this in 5 seconds so it might not be perfect), if the people at Fox actually took any pride in their profession, the graph would look more like this:

[Sigz]

 

[bosk1]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

[GuineaPig]

Compare where the 8.6% mark is compared to the 8.8% mark.

[Ultimetalhead]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.

[XJDenton]

Fox: We can't even use excel correctly.

[Super Dude]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.

[7StringedBeast]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.

I mean no matter what that line looks like, the numbers are printed nice and big right above it.  So anyone who can read numbers will see the decline.  My guess was that this graph was thrown together by a graphics guy really quickly and the inaccuracy of the line is just oversight.  You'd be surprised at how fast these graphics get whipped together.

[Ultimetalhead]

This reflects horribly on Fox either way. Their graphics design people are either super lazy, or hate Obama enough to alter their graph so that the inattentive people who just want to hate on Obama with them (read: the entirety of their audience) will overlook the numbers and say, "OH HO HO THE GRAPH ISN'T GOING DOWN. FUCKIN OBAMA"

Take your pick.

[Sigz]

Considering the short time those graphs are usually put on screen, I'm inclined to say it's more important that the trend of the graph be accurate than the label for each point.

Of course, I don't think it's too much to ask for both.

[7StringedBeast]

I mean either way you look at it, it doesn't really matter.  You shouldn't be watching Fox news anyways.

[El Barto]

Y'all are overlooking the fact that titling the graph "unemployment rate under Obama" is what's so unprofessional.  There's providing an overt implication to push an agenda rather than just presenting facts.  A more reasonable approach would have been to provide "unemployment rate over last 4 years".  People can then determine what factors might be contributing. 

[7StringedBeast]

I mean it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that Fox news is biased.

[hefdaddy42]

You'd be surprised at how fast these graphics get whipped together.

No I wouldn't.

[Implode]

That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.

[kirksnosehair]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

You think it doesn't?  Really?  Come on, man.  I know you're not liberal, but really?

[Jamesman42]

8.6 rounds up to 9 ;-)))

[7StringedBeast]

That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.

I mean, I wouldn't say they are hiding anything.  The numbers are clearly printed for all to see.

[kirksnosehair]

That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.

I mean, I wouldn't say they are hiding anything.  The numbers are clearly printed for all to see.

I think Fox News (sic) is hiring if you're interested. 

[Implode]

That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.

I mean, I wouldn't say they are hiding anything.  The numbers are clearly printed for all to see.

That's the genius of it. Most people won't at the numbers and say, "Wow! It's the lowest it's ever been!" Most will just glance at the graph and think that nothing has really been changing at all. It's a very biased graph created specifically to draw attention away from anything that might make Obama be seen in a good light.

[7StringedBeast]

Well duh, Fox news.  No shit its biased.  But they aren't hiding anything really.  It's not their fault their viewers can't read numbers or that they choose to ignore the numbers.

[XJDenton]

So we should hold a news agency to the standards of it's dumbest viewer? Regardless of who watches, its still a disgraceful example of misrepresenting data.

[Jamesman42]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

what

[AcidLameLTE]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

Yes

[Scheavo]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

When you have a very strong and very reoccurring theme of having such "errors" always fall inline with a certain ideology, I'd say it means something. It's like how whenever a Republican does something very "bad," they "accidentally" label him a Democrat in their news footage.

In Britain, they call Murdoch's crap tabloids, in America, we call it News.

[kirksnosehair]

Funny

[kirksnosehair]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

When you have a very strong and very reoccurring theme of having such "errors" always fall inline with a certain ideology, I'd say it means something. It's like how whenever a Republican does something very "bad," they "accidentally" label him a Democrat in their news footage.

In Britain, they call Murdoch's crap tabloids, in America, we call it News.

Come on, that never happens, except, when it does



And does again

[bosk1]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

You think it doesn't?  Really?  Come on, man.  I know you're not liberal, but really?

Not much, no.  I look at it this way:  If it was an accident, it's the kind of thing that happens all the time, on every major news outlet.  So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox.  If it was done on purpose, it's the kind of thing that happens on the time, on every cable news outlet.  So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox.  Either way, it doesn't really jump out at me as being a significant issue.  And I understand that it's easy to write off my opinion because I am a "conservative" defending a "conservative news network."  But, honestly, that's not it.  First off, I don't watch Fox news, and couldn't care less what they broadcast.  Second, it's just such a minor issue, and I would feel the same if it were MSNBC doing the same thing to a conservative president (if there was such a thing).  If people want to bash Fox News, I get it.  But there are such better arguments than something as insignificant as this.  It would be like someone making the argument that "The Nazis were bad [okay, I'm with you so far] because their grey uniforms were so drab looking [wait...you lost me there]."  I just don't see the big deal.

[kirksnosehair]

Well, I strongly disagree that it's a "minor issue"

[AcidLameLTE]

I don't see how distorting the truth is a minor issue.

[bosk1]

Well, I strongly disagree that it's a "minor issue"

Okay.  I'm just saying it doesn't bother me much.  I mean, does it bother me that we have a corrupt and unreliable news media (as a whole, on both sides of the aisle, IMO)?  Yeah.  But I take that for granted.  And given that, even assuming this was done on purpose (which I don't know), it just strikes me as such a small, insignificant drop in the bucket that it doesn't really phase me. 

But whatever.  I can still agree that you write good music, so...

[kirksnosehair]

I wish BOTH sides were held to a higher standard, but unfortunately they are not. 

And thanks for the music comment 

[Scheavo]

So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something.  Okay...

You think it doesn't?  Really?  Come on, man.  I know you're not liberal, but really?

Not much, no.  I look at it this way:  If it was an accident, it's the kind of thing that happens all the time, on every major news outlet.  So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox.  If it was done on purpose, it's the kind of thing that happens on the time, on every cable news outlet.  So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox.  Either way, it doesn't really jump out at me as being a significant issue.  And I understand that it's easy to write off my opinion because I am a "conservative" defending a "conservative news network."  But, honestly, that's not it.  First off, I don't watch Fox news, and couldn't care less what they broadcast.  Second, it's just such a minor issue, and I would feel the same if it were MSNBC doing the same thing to a conservative president (if there was such a thing).  If people want to bash Fox News, I get it.  But there are such better arguments than something as insignificant as this.  It would be like someone making the argument that "The Nazis were bad [okay, I'm with you so far] because their grey uniforms were so drab looking [wait...you lost me there]."  I just don't see the big deal.

You should really try watching Fox News sometime, becuase you apparently don't know what you're talking about. Other networks are bad, yes, and I would love it if we had no 24 hour news networks, but that doesn't mean Fox isn't the worse offender - by far - and that it doesn't distort, lie and almost constantly present a narrative.