[stefco_]

I agree that these techniques are often used in popular media in deceptive ways, but a couple of those plotting techniques have valid use cases.

Specifically, if you're really concerned about a delta, removing the origin is good for visualization; it lets you just see the difference between two trends (in particle physics, you can show an energy excess this way). Likewise, for exponential phenomena, log plots are the correct choice, since uncertainty will be magnified for larger values. In both cases, of course, you need to include error bars, but that is always true. But I don't think you can "instantly distrust" someone who is using these techniques when they are valid.

[hinkley]

Most graphs with deltas are comparing multiple deltas, not a single delta, which results in misrepresentation.

By screwing with the origin you can make the alternative that saw a 6% reduction look much more compelling than the one that achieved a 4% reduction, when in fact it's probably only slightly more compelling.

[stefco_]

Yes, I agree that these are often abused tactics. Just saying they have their uses. The fundamental problem is graph literacy.