Sorry, I meant Ohio. All those flyover states...
On 3/16/16 3:18 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > > > On 3/16/16 2:58 PM, raghu wrote: >> Some snippets to whet your appetite: > > [snippets snipped] > > I was glancing casually at the NYT coverage of the Michigan results last > night and I had to laugh: all those big blue bubbles for the various > counties which somehow(*) denoted -- wait for it -- the size of > Hillary's *lead* ! I.e. a county where ten people voted and seven of > them voted for her would get a great big blue bubble, while a county > where ten thousand people voted and Bernie won by 1% would get a > weensy-tiny Bernie-colored bubble (I'm partly color blind so I couldn't > really tell what Bernie's color was, but it was dingy and unattractive, > while Hillary's cheerful blue really popped out.) The Times clearly has > a good deal of ingenuity to exercise on oblique deceptions of this kind. > > (*) Inquiring minds want to know, but weren't told: what was the formula > for deciding the sizes of the bubbles? Were they based on the ratio > between B's and H's votes, or on the percentage-point gap? How were the > sizes related to the underlying datum, whatever it was? I suspect that > radius was driven by the datum, rather than area. Of course human > perception of size is much more closely related to area than to linear > dimensions, so you might say that the Times wasn't only lying, it was > lying squared. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
