As the conclave in Rome is almost ready to begin, likely sometime next week, cardinals are gathering in Rome to discuss the affairs of the Catholic Church and then elect a new pope from within their ranks. Many outsiders talk about the time for a pope from outside of Europe, that the papacy has been an office for Europeans—namely Italians—for too long.
However, the preponderance of Catholics outside of Europe is, in the 2000-year history of the Church, a relatively recent phenomenon. Explosive growth in Latin America, Africa, and Asia combined with a decline in European Catholics means that it is only in the last few decades that Europeans have fallen from being nearly 2/3 of the global Catholic Church.
As my infographic attempts to explain, despite this demographic shift, the early Catholic Church chose popes from the distant corners of its territory before it contracted. That historical consolidation in Europe—Italy in particular—has led, however, to a disproportionate weight of cardinal electors, i.e. the cardinals who elect the pope, in favour of Italy and Europe. And as the cardinals typically choose from among their own, it is far more likely that the next pope will come from Europe if not Italy.
We throw the word minion around at work quite often. So for your Friday enjoyment comes a graphic from Indexed that looks at minions vis-a-vis wages vs. compensation as well as whether a worker is busy vs. powerful.
Places never stay the same. And a large part of that is due to demographic shifts. California recently released figures looking at its demographic breakdown through 2060. The New York Times charted and mapped the data through 2020. What the interactive graphic reveals is a stunning shift in just 40 years, less than two generations.
Linking the small multiples through the roll-over allows you to follow the exact change for your county of interest.
Rolling over the demographic group recolours the map to match. While the story is about Hispanic growth, I do wish I could select the group and examine its numbers across California’s counties.
Credit for the piece goes to Mike Bostock, Shan Carter, and Kevin Quealy.
First things first, the verb is to sequester. The noun is sequestration. 1 March is not when the sequester begins. It is when the sequestration begins.
Now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, much is made of high government spending relative to revenue. However, this conversation still misses the point that government spending has fallen significantly. The New York Times charted that recent fall in spending in this graphic. This contraction is the largest drop in over 50 years. Along with the bars indicating recessions, I perhaps would have indicated major US military conflicts given the emphasis the introduction places on those events.
The piece also looks at government employment, which has been atypically lower than pre-recessionary figures. Taken in sum, the two sets of data point to an extant condition of austerity that shall only be worsened by…c’mon everyone…that’s right, the sequestration.
Snow should fall upon Chicago this afternoon and it may measure up to a few inches in depth. But much of this winter has been below average. And that is much the same from last year when snowfall did not even reach 20 inches.
I went through NOAA data to look at the last decade of monthly snowfall to see just how little snow has fallen this winter. (Not a lot.) And then I looked at the entirety of the NOAA records to see where 2011/2 fit in the span of winters. (One of the least snowy.) This graphic is the result.
This weekend I researched meteorological data for a graphic that I will post tomorrow. But in doing that research I came across a series of weather infographics from WGN that are better than the average. The one below details the snowstorm due to impact the Chicago area and how it will form (along with the storm that brought a few inches of snow last week).
Credit for the piece goes to Jennifer Kohnke and Faye Shanti.
I watched the first season of the Walking Dead, but I have not followed the show closely since. That is not to say it is a bad show or is not entertaining, I just haven’t had the time. Fortunately Richard Johnson and Andrew Barr of the National Post have been following along. Otherwise, they would have not been able to create the infographic from which this cropping comes.
The piece examines which character killed which zombie and with what weapon. They then pivot the data to examine the total kills by type and by character. What is interesting, however, is that when the image is reduced and rotated, you get a quick overview of the amount of carnage.
Credit for the piece goes to Richard Johnson and Andrew Barr.
Hurricane Sandy caused a lot of devastation, especially along the Jersey Shore. I covered some of theinfographics coming out of the storm last year when I happened to be home in Pennsylvania for the storm. But as the region begins to rebuild, many property owners are likely to face hardships in brining their constructions up to the newer FEMA codes. Last week the New York Times looked at some of those new regulations—along with damage and flood zones—for the northern section of the Jersey Shore.
It’s Oscar time. And not in the it’s time for grouchy, can-living commentary. It’s as in movie award time.
How are films promoted? Often through trailers and teasers. But how are those made? Well, the New York Times dissected trailers for five of the nine films up for best film. The piece looks at where the films are cut and spliced to create a 120-second-long overview without ruining the plot. And as it turns out, different types of trailers have different systems for cutting up those films.
The piece is made even better through the annotations associated with different segments of the different films. This paired with the introductory text makes the diagram of the film trailers intelligible to the reader. And then of course you can click on the still and see the actual trailer. A solid piece, all around.
Credit for the piece goes to Shan Carter, Amanda Cox, and Mike Bostock.
Two weeks ago Bloomberg published a really great example of annotating what some would find a complex infographic.
On occasion I hear concerns that charting two variables on a scatter plot is confusing. Further confusing people is to then plot the data over time, connected by a line. The approach is really no different than what I hear called “combo” charts. Those take two separate variables and plot them in the same space but use one axis to represent the two different variables—often without respect to scales and implicit meanings in the positioning of the two data series.
I find separating those two series onto separate axes and connecting them over time far clearer. And that’s just what the designers at Bloomberg did. But to allay any concerns about confusion—or so I assume—a series of annotations were made, guided by the buttons in the upper-right. These explain succinctly the view presented to the reader in the highlighted section of the overall graphic.
Overall a strong piece of data visualisation and analysis tied into effort.
Credit for the piece goes to Peter Coy, Evan Applegate, and Jennifer Daniel.