I’ve noticed that most financial market charts in the news zoom in on the area of change, rather than start with a base of zero. In some respects, this makes sense. When you’re discussing a sudden change, focusing on that part of the chart can highlight the change and illuminate details within it. However, with focus comes a loss of perspective.

Take these graphs, for example. They are based on Dow Jones closing averages from January 2 through March 20, 2020 (from the trustworthy-sounding source: Yahoo!) and are made with the Numbers app for macOS.

Changing the baseline

Charts A and B both show the exact same source data. The only difference is that the baseline of chart A is 0, while the baseline of chart B is 19,500. One looks bad, the other looks like the end of the world—like all wealth has evaporated. Chart B highlights the change, but also hides the vast bulk of value hidden below the baseline. Which looks worse to you?

Changing the scale

Charts A and C are also based on the same source data and both share the same zero-baseline. The only difference here is that chart C is squished to about half the height, while keeping the same width as chart A. The drop in chart C looks much less significant, but the numbers are identical.

Changing the baseline and scale

Let’s combine our two methods of distortion. Chart B and chart C still show the same source data. The only differences between the two are the baseline (chart B starts at 19,500 while chart C starts and zero), and the height of chart C is squished to half the height of chart B:

Always look for the baseline.

I listen to a lot of podcasts. I love them. Many of them are dedicated or adjacent to American politics, even though I live in Canada. Among these are The NPR Politics Podcast, Pod Save America & Lovett or Leave It, and The Ezra Klein Show.

While all Canadians live in the long shadow of American politics, we have no direct influence on the US political system. It is against US law for me to contribute to US campaigns. Occasionally, I’ll get outraged to the point of being driven to make some kind of small action or donation locally.

A recent episode of The Ezra Klein Show spoke to my situation. In the episode, Are you a “political hobbyist”? If so, you may be the problem., Klein interviews Political scientist Eitan Hersh about their book, Politics Is for Power (which I haven’t read). They discuss the concept of the political hobbyist.

Paraphrasing Hersh, a political hobbyist is a person who follows politics, knows a fair bit about it, but doesn’t contribute meaningfully to it, and the interest is mostly self-serving. This is me.

The concept and discussion rattled me. I know my relationship to ‘current affairs’ can be a bit like eating junk food. It’s more than that though — it’s like eating something you think is good for you, but isn’t. It’s like those granola bars that are just candy-bars in healthy-looking eco-packaging.

I haven’t made any real changes yet, and I’m not even sure I will. It continues to rattle around in my head though.

On a more positive note, I do find some real joy in podcasts. When I look at most of the podcasts I enjoy, political or not, they tend to share a common trait. They’re built around a person or small group talking about something about which they care deeply. I don’t even have to care about the thing — what matters is that they care and that makes me care too. It can be politics, movies, running a digital agency, or front-end Web development. The key is that the host love what they’re talking about.