I must admit, when I first learned that Charles Blow was going to be writing a weekly column for The New York Times based upon interesting graphic representations of statistics related to the goings on of the world, I thought it was a great idea. As a magazine guy, I've learned to appreciate the deeper insight that can come from studying a really clever graphic. I especially like charts or graphs that can depict cumulative value or change over time, rather than simple snapshots or time slices.Blow's graphics are pedestrian and elementary, however. And he uses them only to frame his point of view, and consciously chooses not give a full perspective. They aren't playful and artful in the way that best graphics are. They look like something that would illustrate an overhead projector presentation for the Politburo. And nothing meaningful really jumps out at you.
At a magazine where I once was a writer, we set out to invent a standing feature we called the "charticle." We never really succeeded because we were too old-fashioned, and our art department wasn't tightly integrated with the writing staff. We liked each other, but spoke different languages. Those of us with a mathematical inclination (as opposed to "quantitative") felt even more estranged from the design people. I remember trying to convey an idea to illustrate the cumulative change in revenue from Microsoft's various product lines as they evolved over time as a series of concentric circles with the smaller ones nudged down to touch tangents at the bottom so that the effect looked like an onion bulb. The outer circle would be the biggest revenue producer, while the core would be the newest line of business. Seemed simple enough to me, and a good way to quite literally show the company's growth in various dimensions. In fact, with the right color choice it could've been quite beautiful. I even drew it up and sent it to them:
But as usual, NIH [the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome] struck. How could a word guy make such an explicit suggestion? We ended up with a bar chart with a linear scale that didn't allow for tracing the company's entire 30-year history, so it could only start in 1995, thus obscuring the whole point of how Microsoft's business evolved and adapted. Good graphics aren't just pretty pictures, but they're better and often more informative when they are.
I guess my point here is that Blow is not particularly imaginative graphically. Nor, as his columns show, is he a very rigorous thinker. That's not exactly a powerful combination, sorry to say.
He reminds me of Bill Maher, who thinks he understands everything, and that anyone who doesn't agree with his opinions is an ignoramus or worse. As Blow puts it in this article, "Trapped in their vacuum of ideas, too many Republicans continue to display an astounding ability to believe utter nonsense, even when faced with facts that contradict it."
Mmm-hmmm. . . .
I'd say that's like the pot calling the kettle black, but I guess that would be racist.
L.J.
