1. Florida Crime Rate at a Glance:
The site also provides data. While the comparison between 1993 to 2013 as a single year to year comparison is well and good, when we look at a series of data, suddenly the measure is year to year in cumulative data. This is probably one of the trickiest finds and to convince that the visual impact is stunningly deceptive is actually difficult, because I was not expecting year to year changes are on the cumulative data.
One way to find this type of interesting twists to visualization is that it is systematically decreasing, the chance of such an event is very less and it should point out to look for details.
Also, I am not sure whether any definition of booking of crime changed. While our cognition is expecting that from 1993 to 2013, nothing changed, it may not be the case, unless it is stated explicitly that nothing changed. It is absolutely possible that these rates actually decreased, but short changing the clarity can actually play not in favor of the graph provider, an unintended public disservice, unfortunately.
The following site provides how Fox news always misrepresents the interpretation of statistical graphics using poor practices of graphical representation of data
A History of dishonest charts
2. Use different standards of measurement in comparison among the people or segments. See the reference on actually what measures are compared between Bush and Obama, which is a mumbo jumbo of spend rate increments vs. incremental spend rates.
3. If the graph is not trending the right way, just invert the direction of the Y axis. Bingo…
Actually the “stand your ground” law did not work according to the data they show!