According to a study from the Facebook data science team, liberals are dramatically more ideologically isolated on Facebook than conservatives.
That’s even though there are more self-declared conservatives on Facebook than liberals. And it’s even though both liberals and conservatives have about equally diverse friend groups, about 60% like-minded and 40% moderate or opposing.
Why? Liberals share news on Facebook at a much higher rate, and therefore take up a disproportionate share of their friends’ attention, both fellow liberals and conservatives.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.
A couple months back I helped brainstorm with NPR’s On The Media for their Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook, a basic guide on how to maintain a healthy skepticism when news orgs are covering a breaking news event. There’s been no shortage of major mistakes made by the media in recent years - Gabby Giffords, the Boston Bombing, Newtown, just to name a few - and there’s a lot we can do as news consumers to scrutinize what’s been reported.
This got me thinking about the tropes commonly used by journalists during breaking news and what they really mean. Last month I started documenting the terminology often used during a breaking news broadcast, and now I’ve made a matrix out of it. Each phrase is placed on the matrix based on how credible a report is, and how likely it is that a reporter feels secure if they actually say it on air. For example, if you say “Other networks are reporting,” it suggests you don’t necessarily know any facts yet, and that you’re deflecting blame from yourself to those other networks if it turns out to be wrong. Meanwhile, if you say “Multiple independent sources have confirmed…” it expresses more certitude, both in terms of the facts and your professional security if you go public with it - especially when you name those sources and explain how they came upon that information.
Anyway, this is my second draft of the matrix, and I’d love to get your thoughts on it. Thanks! - @acarvin
This work visualises nearly 95 million casualties of war from the 20th century. Data made available by The Polynational War Memorial make clear that war was a near-constant characteristic – allowing just two years of peace – in the last century.
Given the sheer magnitude of war’s toll, this visualisation only considers conflicts exceeding 10,000 deaths – yet, in the static form, it is still not feasible to label every conflict. The overall composition reveals patterns in the timing, duration, involvement and human toll of war.
From the 2013 Longlist for the Kantar Information Is Beautiful Awards for data visualization.
Hard to see Steven Pinker’s “better angels" in there…
Rather Be The Devil by John Martyn