May 30, 2014

2 Pinocchios for "A ‘happy’ Obamacare infographic designed to be tweeted."

"We realize an infographic has to condense information, but there is a high burden to meet for one designed to be tweeted. In this case, Enroll America grabbed the statistics that cast the Affordable Care Act in the best possible light, even though a huge percentage of the respondents had barely a chance to experience the system and form opinions about it. We highly doubt many people actually read the report before they retweeted the graphic."


Curious George said...

What are you going to believe, the Obama tweet infographic or your own lying self?

Anonymous said...

Isn't this why we have Vox?

Sam L. said...

WaPo tells truth. For once. Amazed, I am.

The Godfather said...

We're told to retweet this the "haters". So, now, in Obama's America, disagreeing with an Obama program constitutes "hate". Good to know that.

augustus said...

A joke writing about lies in the service of evil which will lead to suffering and death. Yet he cannot even come to call it a lie outright. The Calvinists were on to something with the whole "total depravity" concept.

Quaestor said...

Just two? Obama, benefiting as always from the Pinocchio discount.

Sigivald said...

Heuristic: Political inforgraphics are lies until proven otherwise.

This is especially true for ones from groups with any history of such deceit.

(I'd trust the NRA, because they don't need to lie, and thus don't.

I'd mostly trust Reason, because they're usually pretty good about it.

I'd spot-check National Review.

I'd research something from the RNC or CPAC.

I'd assume anything from MoveOn or any Progressive organization was simply a lie [or so misleading as to be essentially false in implications].

Why? Because that's what experience has shown me about their relative honesty.)

CWJ said...

Just reacting to the four bullet points of that graphic without delving into the study's details.

First "relieved" is a rather strange not particularly positive emotion to have after making a purchase.

Second 70% are confident that they can pay for what they bought. Oh boy, what seller wouldn't be excited about a projected 30% default rate.

Third, 60% think, they don't know, they will be able to access the doctor they'll want when they need one. Whoopee! So 40% bought a product about which they are unsure it will work.

Finally, 4 times as likely to be happy as unhappy. Gee, why didn't they say the percentage who were happy like they did those who thought they could pay, or thought there were enough doctors? This suggests that the percentage isn't all that impressive. Like say 40% happy, 10% unhappy, and 50% neither happy nor unhappy?

All told, the graphic does the best with that with which they had to work. But even without looking at the detailed results, the graphic's content is pretty sad. The question remains, who will actually think about the graphics content rather than simply react to it?

CWJ said...


I just clicked through to read the detailed analysis. What a laugh. Looks like I absolutely nailed the breakdown of the "Happy" assertion. I even see that they had to add in "somewhat confident" to get to their 7 out of 10 claim. Yeah, these policies are going to stay in force.

But once again, how many people will get past the glib message, bright colors, and slick presentation to actually think about the weak content of this graphic?

Phil 314 said...

So, half a shit sandwich

(an open-faced shit sandwich?)