You furnish the graphic, I'll furnish the data

When you make a graphic, as for any kind of information, is dangerous to have a previous idea and not to investigate but to prove it, not to find the truth. Other danger is to, just, not to investigate seriously. The graphic that Matías Cortina sends me looks to be of this kind.


Click on image to see more details)


This graphics has been published in a lot of blogs, to show how the communication is changing. Yes, communication is changing. So we don't need unaccurate graphics to show it. There is a clear data: according to this graphic, nowadays there are more people on social networks that watching TV. Sorry, but I don't think so. There are much more people with TV than with internet. And not everybody on internet access the social networks, so the equation is easy.



Anyway, as Matías Cortina says, the graphic has no sources, and doesn't say whic are the magnitudes (population?)el gráfico no tienen fuente ni indica a qué magnitudes se refiere (¿población?). Matías investigated about it. This is what the author said:

"The graph was based on combination of a lot of things, a number of interviews, general study, general trend movements, my experience etc. I cannot give you a specific source though, because I used none specifically. The graphs before 1990 are all based on interviews, and a large number of Google searches to learn about the history of Newspaper, TV and Radio - and more specifically, what people uses in the past. The graphs from 1998 and up to today, is based on all the things that have happened in the past 11 years, of which I have probably seen 1000 surveys ( it is what I do for a living). And the graph from 2009 and forward is based on what I, and many other people predict will happen in the years to come.
One very important thing though, this is not a reflection of my opinion. This is the result a careful analysis. There are always variations, and different types of people. But I believe that this graph accurately reflects consumer focus."


I agree with Matias: this menas, more or less: "I guessed". Or its look so. But Cortina also asked about the scale:

"I fail to see how the scale of the graph can be seen as a lie. You can clearly see each year. The scale changes because it would be impractical (due to size) to create a graph with one year increments over a span of 220 years - and impossible to dig into if it was in 50 year increments. This way, the graph scale expand or contracts based on the important changes over time - giving you a clearer image of what is happening."

Judge by yourselves. But I may say I don't like it.