Alberto Cairo: Data journalism needs to up its own standards by Alberto Cairo.
From the post:
Did you know that wearing a helmet when riding a bike may be bad for you? Or that it’s possible to infer the rise of kidnappings in Nigeria from news reports? Or that we can predict the year when a majority of Americans will reject the death penalty (hint: 2044)? Or that it’s possible to see that healthcare prices in the U.S. are “insane” in 15 simple charts? Or that the 2015 El Niño event may increase the percentage of Americans who accept climate change as a reality?
…
But I have to confess my disappointment with the new wave of data journalism — at least for now. All the questions in the first paragraph are malarkey. Those stories may not be representative of everything that FiveThirtyEight, Vox, or The Upshot are publishing — I haven’t gathered a proper sample — but they suggest that, when you pay close attention at what they do, it’s possible to notice worrying cracks that may undermine their own core principles.
In my present interpretation of his examples, Alberto has good reason to complain.
But that doesn’t mean re-cast any of the stories would be closer to some “truth.” Rather they would be closer to my norms for such stories. Which isn’t the same thing.
Or as Nietzsche would say: There are no facts, only interpretations.
People from presidents on down lay claim to “facts.” Your opponents can be pilloried for ignoring “facts.” Current mis-adventures in domestic and foreign security of the United States are predicated on emotional insecurities packaged as “facts.”
Acknowledging Nietzsche puts all “facts” on an even footing.
Enough diverse “facts” and it is harder to agree to spend $Trillions pursuing a security that is pushed further away with every dollar spent.