Background
Data journalism can be defined as a way of cleaning,
analyzing, storing and visualizing data. The interactions between the
journalists themselves and departments such as visual design or statistics is
increased. Data journalism is able to convey the story but have digital
information right along with it. Software can be used to help find connections
between data, help create info graphics.
A journalist at the New York Times, Derek Willis, put it
this way, “Tools that can help distill and make sense of it are valuable. They
save time and convey important insights. News organizations can’t afford to
cede that role,” (14). Data journalism not only combines several aspects of a
story – using a plethora of information – but does it in a way that adds value
and clarity.
Companies that use big data journalism have both their pros
and cons. The benefits to this form of journalism is the simple way in which it
operates. Data journalism combines all of the aspects that go far beyond words.
Algorithms, data, charts and software are used in order to build a story. Data
journalism somehow manages to combine all of this information in a way that
organizes and cleans out the unimportant or uninteresting aspects. It provides a well-rounded story that some news channels may not be able to do.
However, because big data journalism is fueled by the
ability to produce all of this information and data that lies behind the
scenes, the question of privacy comes into play. Does this information always
need to be shared? Ever scrolled through Facebook or even Google and wondered
how they knew you have been trying to find a red dress or cross-country
flights? We encounter big data journalism more than we think we do and it has
access to more of our information that we think it does.
 |
| Courtesy of The Centre of Advanced Journalism, at the University of Melbourne found through the Creative Commons. |
Example
In 2011 (and not the only case of its kind), teacher rankings
were printed in nearly every news city organization. The issue? The Department
of Education said that these rankings were not exactly accurate, in fact they
had the ability to be up to 35% off (for math teachers) or 53% (for English
teachers). These teachers scores were not only printed everywhere with their
poor scores, but their names were attached to the numbers as well.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, other journalists (and anyone
else who read the article) were able to compare test scores and wrote an article the following day on the city’s “worst teacher,” Pascal Mauclair. Yet
while these poor ratings and articles were attached to Mauclair, many more
journalists went to interview people from the school and Mauclair got
incredibly great feedback, even the Principle said she’d put her children in
his class.
While the Department of Education noted its flawed point
system, big data journalists still had access to all of these names and numbers
and willingly decided to share the information, despite knowing its previously
stated flaws. Privacy in a sense was invaded and because of these publications
and the drama that followed, many teachers got bad and simply inaccurate reputations.
While this example is a specific and unique one, it makes us
think, what all do big data journalists have access to...and how much of it really benefits journalism?
Questions
Have you ever read any thing or encountered media online
where you wondered how they gathered all of their information, if so, what? Do
you think it was ethical?
While I mostly discussed the darker side that this form of
journalism can take, do you think that the pros outweigh the cons? Why or why
not?
Sources
No comments:
Post a Comment