Hi Enrico — strongly agree with this on the flawed binary framing emphasizing intent to deceive. Intead, in most cases it is making choices based on persuasion of peers or the broader readership. I think there is fertile ground to think about this in relation to how data visualization is used at major news outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post on a broad range of topics — but especially on climate change. Consider for example this 2019 widely circulated and influential ProPublica/NY Times series on "Climate Change and Migration." Notice that the default view for readers in the visualized climate impact projections are RP8.5 which is a "worse case" scenario that even by 2019 most scientists knew was an impossible scenario that could be ruled out [it assumes continued, widespread deployment of coal plants for power generation worldwide.] Yet it is that scenario rather than the likely RP4.5 scenario that is the visually prominent projection and what is emphasized in the text of the article. The same is for the related studies that the article draws on. RP8.5 is visualized in the main body of the studies and RP4.5 in the supplementary materials. Something to discuss together when we have a chance. Below are links to background: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html; https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-will-force-a-new-american-migration; https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2; https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/;
There is a lot to say about misinformation. I am not a fan of the way misinformation is described and depicted. The problem is way more complex and nuanced. This is where your expertise can be extremely valuable. All media have their own biases and charts and data have this veneer of objectivity. I am also concerned with the idea that we have "the science" about something when in reality things are way more complex. This is a big unsolved challenge of scientific communication in general and visualization specifically. I feel like authors and designers are too afraid to expose the uncertainty that exists in pretty much everything. There is a lot to say about uncertainty communication and visualization. II feel like advanced societies have to learn to deal with uncertainty and uncertainty communication. It's a long discussion to have! Looking forward ...
Hi Enrico — strongly agree with this on the flawed binary framing emphasizing intent to deceive. Intead, in most cases it is making choices based on persuasion of peers or the broader readership. I think there is fertile ground to think about this in relation to how data visualization is used at major news outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post on a broad range of topics — but especially on climate change. Consider for example this 2019 widely circulated and influential ProPublica/NY Times series on "Climate Change and Migration." Notice that the default view for readers in the visualized climate impact projections are RP8.5 which is a "worse case" scenario that even by 2019 most scientists knew was an impossible scenario that could be ruled out [it assumes continued, widespread deployment of coal plants for power generation worldwide.] Yet it is that scenario rather than the likely RP4.5 scenario that is the visually prominent projection and what is emphasized in the text of the article. The same is for the related studies that the article draws on. RP8.5 is visualized in the main body of the studies and RP4.5 in the supplementary materials. Something to discuss together when we have a chance. Below are links to background: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html; https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-will-force-a-new-american-migration; https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2; https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/;
There is a lot to say about misinformation. I am not a fan of the way misinformation is described and depicted. The problem is way more complex and nuanced. This is where your expertise can be extremely valuable. All media have their own biases and charts and data have this veneer of objectivity. I am also concerned with the idea that we have "the science" about something when in reality things are way more complex. This is a big unsolved challenge of scientific communication in general and visualization specifically. I feel like authors and designers are too afraid to expose the uncertainty that exists in pretty much everything. There is a lot to say about uncertainty communication and visualization. II feel like advanced societies have to learn to deal with uncertainty and uncertainty communication. It's a long discussion to have! Looking forward ...