Identify the bias

[ATFFL]

Just wondering how long it will take people to identify the very subtle bias in this graph.

[ATFFL]

Bono: You are exceedingly close.  Look a bit closer.

Gabu:  Sort of, but not really.  They did leave the data in.  They could have made it a 15-year graph and cut Reagan out entirely.

A18:  Did it really drop 2%?  Look a bit closer.

Need to run for a bit.  More clues when I get back if no one has it.

[ATFFL]

It dropped 2.2% from 2000 to 2004.

That it did.  Think about that a bit more.  Something is quite right about that.

I got to run, starting a summer class.  If no one has it when I get back, I will point it out.

[ATFFL]

That is a big part of it, but look closer at the years.

We use 1989, the year HW Bush was inaugurated.

We use 1993, the year Clinton was inaugurated.

Then we use 2000, the year W. was elected, not the year he was inaugurated.   

So not only do we have the effect exaggerated, but we make it look like the decline occurred entirely under W.

[ATFFL]

angus:  Which word would be best would depend mainly on whatever article was built around this graph.  I also thought it carried the least baggage with it.  If I had used "poor presentation" I think no one would look past the way the small range exaggerated the changes.  If I used "propaganda" I was afraid people might have spent too much time reading too much into the graph.