Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

electrons-streaming OP t1_j9p914b wrote

Reply to comment by Th3S1l3nc3 in NY Times data visualization is Russian propaganda. Uses population for circle size instead of GDP. by electrons-streaming

The article is about how Russia was not isolated from trade and instead the world fractured into trade blocs. The appropriate data to demonstrate this would be either GDP or trade flows. Using population gives an intentionally misleading picture, because India seems like it is as valuable a trade partner as 2 United States and the Eu combined. The idea that the population is what matters is a central Russian propaganda point and this data visualization is designed to be deceiving and support that point.

−14

Inutilisable t1_j9pis7d wrote

> Designed to be deceiving

The burden of proof for this statement is on you and it’s heavy. If we can make claim like this then maybe I could declare that you are a - check notes - a pro military industrial complex propagandist and your rhetoric is designed to -turn page- plant the seed of an ideological purity spiral.

30

goddamn2fa t1_j9qwcjj wrote

I don't know. As far as the NYT is concerned, it's been sus ever since they got rid of the public editor.

−1

Th3S1l3nc3 t1_j9pft3d wrote

Rational person: This would be better if they used GDP as a visual instead of population!

Irrational person: I disagree with their approach, thus they are spewing Russian propaganda and fake news!

This sums of the problem with your post.

22

Fluorescent_Tip t1_j9pdey5 wrote

I get your point, but if half the world’s population is ambivalent then that is worth noting. I don’t buy the idea that the nytimes is pushing Russian propaganda - that’s a stretch.

18

tilapios t1_j9ql8so wrote

The article also has a line graph of Russian imports that shows they have recovered to more or less pre-invasion levels. That would seem to be pretty convincing evidence that Russian is not isolated from trade, regardless of how country circle sizes are scaled in the other figures.

4

electrons-streaming OP t1_j9qnnjy wrote

I am just arguing about the misleading datavisualization. I have no idea what the Russian trade situation is really like.

−7

Kenilwort t1_j9s7pqn wrote

TBH I totally see your point. Your title is a bit inflammatory, if you had stuck with the original criticism and dropped the "propoganda" word I think you could have won more people over. Also, we'd have to establish what the purpose of this data visualization is. Is it to make Russia look stronger and thus increase support for ukraine? Is it to make Russia look stronger and thus decrease support for Ukraine? Hard to say what the effect of an article like this will be.

2

electrons-streaming OP t1_j9s89wt wrote

I am pretty surprised at the response. I wonder if data is beautiful folks are offended at the politicization of the sub or if its full of tanky pro Russian people. I think this is right to the heart of how you can use data visualization to drive different agendas using the same data. I have no idea why the NYTimes did it this way, probably just sensationalism, but the Russians push this point to try and support their narrative that the US cannot effectively sanction Russia and therefore Ukraine should just give up.

−4

hampsted t1_j9rejos wrote

Have you considered the fact that the NYT employs a bunch of dipshits?

1

electrons-streaming OP t1_j9rerdz wrote

Actually, I think its more likely that this is just normal sensationalism that happens to coincide with Russian propaganda. An article about how most of the worlds GDP is on the ukranian side doesnt have that concern tang that the NYTimes loves.

−3