There are many ways that charts can "lie" or be very misleading in their narratives. For example, in the booked "Citizens for Trump," the cover has a map that looks like the United States covered in red with all of the counties that voted for Trump in the 2016 election (Cairo 2). The map gives the narrative. that the vast majority of Americans want Trump for president based on land size, but in actuality, when you account for the voting weight of each of the counties that voted for Trump, they are much smaller compared to Democratic counties, primarily because Democratic counties are much more densely populated cities. In this sense, data was used to construct a narrative that really didn't exist. What I find interesting is that two people can look at the same piece of data and come to two opposite conclusions, simply because they have different interpretations of the data. There is a popular example that planes shot during WWII would come back mostly with holes through their wings and not through the engine. Many people would then think that one should reinforce the wings better, because there are more shots through them, but in actuality, if you want to save more planes then you should reinforce the engine, because we're seeing that planes can survive if their wings are shot through but not if their engines are shot. Being able to understand data is really important to understand what narrative is being told and whether to believe it.