4 ms·

The definitive, two-part answer to "Is data journalism?"

7 points by _pius 17y ago

patio11 17y ago
If you ever find yourself arguing about definitions, the quick sanity check "Wait, am I a lawyer?" is often helpful. Because arguing about definitions is a productive use of time... if you are a lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, then it probably substitutes for productive work. See: "Web programmers are not real programmers.", "X is not a startup.", "That development methodology is not Agile. ", etc. (This pathology is particularly attractive when an industry doesn't know how to measure their productive work, because having discussions about definitions looks like it makes forward progress somehow. I mean, 12 people times 6 hours in a meeting means you've spent the equivalent of three full days! Clearly that had to do something!) On the subject of data and journalism, the New York Times is doing just about everything right (in its own lights, anyhow): they're collecting and making public data that would otherwise be housed in a forgotten CSV file somewhere, they're making it easily accessible via visualizations, they're carefully curating the data so that it tells a narrative, and they are leveraging the heck out of their brand and web presence to make the whole thing work. (Obligatory disclaimer: the NYT is a crusading liberal newspaper, and they produce crusading liberal data visualizations. Just because I'm not a crusading liberal doesn't mean I can't appreciate the art, though.)
- mahmud 17y ago
  Allow me to respectfully disagree patio; attempting to define a name or a phrase is an excellent way to understand that which it describes. Many times I sit up to write a retort to someone because I disagree with their terminology, their phrasing or even their thinking. But as I think deeper of the issue, and come up with a good answer, and researching my argument, looking up words, etc. I find myself coming up with a better understanding of the question. After that, it doesn't really matter whether I reply or not; my day has been improved tremendously with a small epiphany after some reflection. Don't brush away abuses of language, use them to motivate you to understand the issues better.
guywithabike 17y ago
I love how the comments quickly devolve into "Adrian, do you want to talk about the definition of journalism?" Also: "Will you engage in a discussion of the value proposition?" That part made me throw up in my throat a little bit.

7 points by _pius 17y ago

If you ever find yourself arguing about definitions, the quick sanity check "Wait, am I a lawyer?" is often helpful. Because arguing about definitions is a productive use of time... if you are a lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, then it probably substitutes for productive work. See: "Web programmers are not real programmers.", "X is not a startup.", "That development methodology is not Agile. ", etc. (This pathology is particularly attractive when an industry doesn't know how to measure their productive work, because having discussions about definitions looks like it makes forward progress somehow. I mean, 12 people times 6 hours in a meeting means you've spent the equivalent of three full days! Clearly that had to do something!) On the subject of data and journalism, the New York Times is doing just about everything right (in its own lights, anyhow): they're collecting and making public data that would otherwise be housed in a forgotten CSV file somewhere, they're making it easily accessible via visualizations, they're carefully curating the data so that it tells a narrative, and they are leveraging the heck out of their brand and web presence to make the whole thing work. (Obligatory disclaimer: the NYT is a crusading liberal newspaper, and they produce crusading liberal data visualizations. Just because I'm not a crusading liberal doesn't mean I can't appreciate the art, though.)

mahmud 17y ago
Allow me to respectfully disagree patio; attempting to define a name or a phrase is an excellent way to understand that which it describes. Many times I sit up to write a retort to someone because I disagree with their terminology, their phrasing or even their thinking. But as I think deeper of the issue, and come up with a good answer, and researching my argument, looking up words, etc. I find myself coming up with a better understanding of the question. After that, it doesn't really matter whether I reply or not; my day has been improved tremendously with a small epiphany after some reflection. Don't brush away abuses of language, use them to motivate you to understand the issues better.

guywithabike 17y ago

I love how the comments quickly devolve into "Adrian, do you want to talk about the definition of journalism?" Also: "Will you engage in a discussion of the value proposition?" That part made me throw up in my throat a little bit.