Drone Strike Map

[DiscoBerry]

Think that this is interesting and worth a share.  It shows every drone strike in Pakistan by both the Bush and Obama administrations.  Have to link cannot share the map as a picture, and it can only be fully appreciated if you have the ability to zoom out a bit.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/10/drone_strikes_map_shows_pakistan_drone_strikes.html 

   

[m52nickerson]

That's pretty nice.

[Yla]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

[m52nickerson]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

Would you like them to make numbers up?

[DiscoBerry]

My question was why is that spot 114 drone strikes on basically the same spot near Peshawar?

[Lt. Fred]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

Would you like them to make numbers up?

That's what they are doing.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Goodness, look at all that blue. Good thing he got his Nobel Peace Prize money up front...

[Sylvana]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

Would you like them to make numbers up?

That's what they are doing.

Well they are not making number up, just ignoring number that are inconvenient. I looked at that map and was surprised by how many attacks there were, but even more surprised by how many seemed to have no civilian casualties, especially given the abysmal record that drone strikes have. Interesting graphic.

Also Obama didn't win the Nobel peace prize for promoting peace, he won it for not being Bush.

[Yla]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

Would you like them to make numbers up?

That's what they are doing.

Well they are not making number up, just ignoring number that are inconvenient. I looked at that map and was surprised by how many attacks there were, but even more surprised by how many seemed to have no civilian casualties, especially given the abysmal record that drone strikes have. Interesting graphic.

Also Obama didn't win the Nobel peace prize for promoting peace, he won it for not being Bush.

That's what I mean, and what the graphic as-is suggests to the casual viewer. Granted it's not as bad as it could be - they could ignore non-militant kills completely.
I don't want them to make numbers up, I want them to use a mode of display that makes 'Unknown' distinguishable from 'Zero non-militant kills'.

[Lt. Fred]

Cute how the legend establishes the outer circle as 'non-millitants killed', and then most strike marks show zero. If you hover with the cursor, it shows that it's conveniently 'Unknown'.

Would you like them to make numbers up?

That's what they are doing.

Well they are not making number up, just ignoring number that are inconvenient. I looked at that map and was surprised by how many attacks there were, but even more surprised by how many seemed to have no civilian casualties, especially given the abysmal record that drone strikes have. Interesting graphic.

Zero is a number. They are 'making up' that number when they are not sure if it applies.

Also Obama didn't win the Nobel peace prize for promoting peace, he won it for not being Bush.

A worthy goal.

[Witchyjoshy]

Zero is a number.

And "Unknown" isn't.

People, it's one thing to criticize the Obama administration for covering up how many civilians are killed.

It's another to start blathering complete inaccuracies while doing so.

Criticize the maps for showing "Unknown"

Don't say they aren't making numbers up when they aren't even showing the numbers that you say are being made up.

[Lt. Fred]

Many of the balls show no civilian casualties even when there certainly were civilian casualties. The map is pretending that there were no civilian casualties when there were, or when we're not sure.

[Sylvana]

Zero is a number.

And "Unknown" isn't.

People, it's one thing to criticize the Obama administration for covering up how many civilians are killed.

It's another to start blathering complete inaccuracies while doing so.

Criticize the maps for showing "Unknown"

Don't say they aren't making numbers up when they aren't even showing the numbers that you say are being made up.

The problem is that they are equating "unknown" as "zero" casualties.
As a result the graph makes it look like drone strikes are hugely effective at killing terrorists and ONLY terrorists with almost no civilian casualties which is just plain manipulative.

What they should have done is make each circle represent total casualties from the strike, and then have an inner circle showing confirmed militant kills. That would be much more accurate. However I somehow doubt it would be as flattering.

I also find it hard to believe that the non militant kills are unknown. I am pretty sure they know exactly how many people they killed. I think they are making it unknown by saying that the civilians they killed could have been militants, and that is why it is unknown, despite knowing how many people they really killed.

[m52nickerson]

The map is pretending that there were no civilian casualties when there were, or when we're not sure.

No it is not.  Mouse over any one of those and you can see "unknown" for civilian casualties.  I suppose they could put some type of outline on those circle to distinguish them, but they are not pretending they are zero.

[Yla]

The map is pretending that there were no civilian casualties when there were, or when we're not sure.

No it is not.  Mouse over any one of those and you can see "unknown" for civilian casualties.  I suppose they could put some type of outline on those circle to distinguish them, but they are not pretending they are zero.

Of course. The point is, however, that you only learn this if you do hover over the point (in other words, do deeper research ). For the casual viewer, it evokes the impression of a next-to-civilian-casualty-free campaign. After all, the map legend claims to show these numbers, but in practice, most of the data points fall into the 'Unknown' category.

I am criticizing the presentation style/design choices of the map/graph.