Often when academia college professors assign a project they are putting forth "suggestive reading" thus they wish the completed project, data and the charts to mimic pre-determined outcomes. This is a problem in that it is completely using a technique called diplomacy. In other words the art of letting someone else get your way. When this is done in our colleges and universities it is extremely unethical as it is telling or selling and not teaching one to think.

So often we see this in society as well with Liberal Think Tanks and Democratic Law Firms who work as K-street Lobbyist Firms and the similarities to their techniques and academia are all too telling. These predetermined outcomes represent an attempt to change public perception.

Often government agencies put forth reports also as they self evaluate and in those reports, as good as it maybe (or not) these reports are often rejected by the media. Thus any attempts for those agencies to further use a visualization tool; website pictures, charts, graphs and such of surveys, polls and manipulation of the already hashed over data in order to re-introduce what has already been rejected then it will immediately be called into question. Often they will suggest additional reading in order to bring the viewer to their point of view. Of course in the end is as this pre-determined examples that are used as tools of diplomacy.

For those who immediate see thru this tactic they will attack such notions and then caste them back into the media thus taking the eyes of the public away from the agencys current perception of "piss poor portrayed performance" by the purveyors of mass media hysteria. In the end the public is baffled by bull crap and the agency receives next years budget money and the game continues, but who wins? Why do we allow this? Because it is socially acceptable and considered academically correct in the over all political correctness in complete denial of reality. Consider this philosophical thought in 2006.