Despite not liking the NYT example (too much clutter to my sight and using faces conveys little information because they are difficult to match and to distingui

Despite not liking the NYT example (too much clutter to my sight and using faces conveys little information because they are difficult to match and to distinguish), I really look forward to an age in which data analysts treat readers as intelligent and show data as data, not as nice plots. The problem with charts is twofold: a) They are very very easily turned into ideological tools. b) They are very very easily turned into 'kitsch' pastiches made by uninformed people trying to make beautiful-looking summaries. Look at the charts here (population density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density): is it good or bad to have a population density of >500? Is it even good or bad to have it at 41-500? What would you have thought if the colors were reversed? Compare with this one (deforestation http://www.cryonie.com/en/world/images/map-deforestation.jpg http://www.cryonie.com/en/world/images/map-deforestation.jpg): is it good or bad to have forests?