I don’t know if the disparity in the 2006 data is a mistake or perhaps one of the maps is based on more complete data than the other. At any rate, I don’t think it negates the overall finding of big changes in the obesity rate over the last twenty years.

First of all: why the inconsistent jumping of years in the CNN slideshow? For instance, from 1985 to 1991 takes 6 years, and from 1991 to 1995 takes 4. In all the slides combined we have intervals of 6, 4, 3, 2 years. Whereas the source, the CDC, had surveys done every year. So why the jumping, which I believe is not statistically sound? My guess: for dramatic effect.

But second, and much more importantly: the CNN map is INCORRECT. If you compare the 2006 map on CNN with the CDC map of 2006 (see http://cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/index.htm) you’ll notice differences where there shouldn’t be any, as CNN states they used the CDC data!

Of course, the CNN map turns every state with a rate above 25 percent into a deep red, where the CDC has two categories, 20-25 percent and above 30 (and uses orange and deep orange, instead of red). This makes things look “worse”.

But more intruigingly, the centre of the country – from ND to TX (I’m not American, I know most states, but to be on the safe side I’ll use the abbreviations, so you can compare easier) – on the CNN map is completely red. So above 25 percent obesity. This is not correct according to the CDC map. ND, SD, MN and IL should be DARK BLUE in the CNN version, as they are yellow (20-24 percent) in the CDC map. This also goes for WA, OR, ID, NV in the west and the smaller states MD and VA in the east.
HI, MA and RI are dark blue in the CNN map (20-24 percent), but should be as blue as CO (so lighter), as their obesity rate is 15-19 percent, not 20-24 percent like CNN wants us to believe (?)

So yes, it’s getting much and much worse, if you’re not stating the data as they should be. We’re not even talking about manipulating data here (lies, damned lies and statistics), it’s just plain false representation. I can’t understand why though. CNN states its source as BRFSS, CDC. Did the graphics editor who had to change the colors – to make them look more like CNN’s instead of CDC’s – make mistakes, was he tired, colour blind or just plain stupid? (I don’t even want to go into conspiracy theory thinking …)

But this is, of course, how hysteria forms: on the basis of wrong “facts”. But maybe that could be a good thing, fat accepting people could – once again – say the data don’t add up. We’re being lied to – in this case by CNN – whether that’s been consciously done or not.