Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

Alicia Shepard in A few weeks after the Panama Papers’ release, The New York Times and Washington Post start digging in caught me off guard with:

Many newspapers aren’t comfortable with ICIJ’s “radical sharing” concept.

Suspecting Alicia was using “sharing” to mean something beyond my experience, I had to read her post!

Alicia explains the absence of the New York Times and the Washington Post from the initial reporting on the Panama Papers saying:

Why weren’t the Times or the Post included originally? Walker said that, in general, many newspapers are not comfortable with ICIJ’s “radical sharing” concept, in which all journalists who agree to collaborate must promise to share their reporting, protect confidentiality, not share the data, and publish when ICIJ gives the go-ahead.

I see. “Radical sharing,” means collaborating on research, a good thing, protecting confidentiality, another good thing, then being bound to not share the data (restricting the data to ICIJ approved participants), a bad thing, and publishing when allowed by the ICIJ, another bad thing.

Not what I would consider “radical” sharing but I can see why newspapers, like many traditional publishers, fear the sharing of research. Even though sharing of research in other areas has been proven to float all boats higher.

The lizard brain reflex against sharing still dominates in many areas of human endeavor. News reporting in particular.

Alicia also quotes Marina Walker saying:

“We are excited to be working with The New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the world’s best newspapers,” said Marina Walker, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.–based ICIJ. “Both of them signed up at more or less the same time, two or three weeks ago. Both teams were recently trained by ICIJ researchers and reporters on how to use the data and we continue to assist them as needed, like we do with other partners. So far, so good.”

The “smoking gun” for my suggestion in Panama Papers – Shake That Money Maker that the ICIJ are hoarding the Panama Papers for their own power and profit.

The ICIJ wants control over the data, realizing that training and assistance are never free, to dictate who sees the data and when they can publish using the data.

Combine that with the largest data leak to date and the self-service nature of the claim the data might reveal the leaker becomes self-evident.

Hoarding data for profit is, as I have said, understandable and to some degree even reasonable.

But let’s have that conversation and not one based on specious claims about a leaker’s or public’s interest.

PS: Getting to dictate to the Washington Post and the New York Times must be heady stuff.

PPS: Any Panama Paper secondary leakers yet?

A Data Journalism Expert’s Personal Toolkit by Duc Quang Nguyen.

From the post:

…
I was interested to review my own toolkit. Spoiler alert — this post is code-centric and will mention R a lot. This is just because I am familiar with it. I do not think everybody should necessarily use my workflow. I will not discuss much Excel, Python, Javascript, … I am well aware, however, that they are more typically used in ddj.

Before I dive into my typical workflow and tools for 2016 so far, I should mention that I work as the sole data journalist in my newsroom. It is more common in news outlets to have data/visual journalism teams, with people specialized in specific sub-areas of data-driven journalism. My workflow is pretty much data journalism on a shoe string.

Also, by ideology and because I am a nerd, I use (nearly) solely open-source free tools. Again, it is just because these are what I am more familiar with. But if there was a proprietary framework with which I can do things faster and better, I would switch in a heartbeat.
…

Your starting toolkit may not have all the capabilities of Nguyen’s toolkit but it is a good target to grow towards.

Start from your everyday needs and workflow and then select tools that meet those needs and workflow. Many fine tools won’t suit your present needs and there’s no shame in that. You will be far better off mastering tools that do meet your current needs.

Enjoy!

“National security” is the battle cry of governments seeking to conceal materials from the public.

In an odd turn of events, Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s (SZ), the recipient of the Panama Papers leak, claims the equivalent of national security to withhold the leaked data.

No one doubts the obligation of Süddeutsche Zeitung to protect the identity of the leaker, but specious logic leads SZ astray:

“As journalists, we have to protect our source: we can’t guarantee that there is no way for someone to find out who the source is with the data. That’s why we can’t make the data public,” the team said during an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit, which included journalist Bastian Obermayer, who was first contacted by the anonymous source.

“You don’t harm the privacy of people, who are not in the public eye. Blacking out private data is a task that would require a lifetime of work – we have eleven million documents,” the unit added.

Change SZ to the United States government, any government, and play back the argument:

Out of 11.5 million documents “…we can’t guarantee that there is no way for someone to find out who the source is with the data. That’s why we can’t make the data public….

A twitter storm of mockery would follow along with Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Süddeutsche Zeitung makes such an absurd claim and the press responds with:

(dead air)

All Süddeutsche Zeitung can guarantee is their secrecy:

… prevents the general public from checking government abuses of power and participating in democratic deliberation over the optimal [financial regulation] policies. page 817 Secrecy and National Security Investigations by Nathan Alexander Sales.

And the public cannot hold Süddeutsche Zeitung and others responsible for who have not been named in current reports.

Has anyone mentioned Süddeutsche Zeitung remains in possession of a treasure trove that will see present cub reporters past retirement?

One of the righteous 400 journalists with access to the Panama Papers needs to complete the leaking process. Empower the public to reach its own conclusions. Aided by the independent press but not dependent upon it.

Leak the leak!

Here is a flowchart designed to prove to the news industry their audiences aren’t idiots:

Apologies, you will have to select the image to see a legible view of it.

The article, A serious problem the news industry does not talk about by Jennifer Barndel, has this section heading:

The culture of journalism breeds disdain for the people we’re meant to be serving, i.e., the audience.

While I recommend this article to journalists, programmers, lawyers, judges, agency heads, etc., could all profit from reading it and substituting their stories and vocabularies into it.

It really isn’t the case that your “audience” is stupid, in the overwhelming majority of the cases they don’t know what you know. Either specific facts or context in which to understand those facts.

Of course I should listen to my own advice when I chide the EU, but I despise provincialism almost as I do willful ignorance. That’s an excuse, not a justification.

Read Jennifer’s post as though it is speaking of your audience/users. It may present opportunities for growth you (and I) have overlooked.

Panama battle looms as HMRC demands leaked data is handed over to pursue tax fraudsters by Alex Hawkes.

From the post:

British tax authorities are heading for a showdown with the media groups behind the Panama Papers exposé, demanding they hand over the cache of documents.

The Government has pledged £10million for a task-force to investigate the Panama data, but it is understood the authorities have so far only managed to get hold of some of the 11.5million documents.

Revenue & Customs told The Mail on Sunday it was ‘determined’ to get hold of the leaked information to pursue criminal investigations against tax fraudsters and would ‘explore every avenue, nationally and internationally’.

t said: ‘While we appreciate that the media is not an arm of law enforcement, given the seriousness of the allegations that they have published and the calls they have made for action to be taken, we would reasonably expect them to co-operate in giving us access to the Panama data.’

The documents were leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca to organisations including The Guardian and the BBC, leading to headlines around the world alleging widespread tax evasion and to calls for a crackdown.
…

I hate to side with tax authorities anywhere, for any reason, but the Panama Papers should be publicly posted for everyone to see.

The claim that the estimated 400 or so journalists who worked on the Panama Papers have some right to withhold the papers to protect the privacy of those named therein is entirely specious.

If you credit that claim, then you also have to credit the privacy claim of Mossack Fonseca on behalf of its clients, in which case, the journalists should have deleted the files upon receipt.

The point is that secrecy of the files, whether in the hands of Mossack Fonseca or the 400 or so journalists, inures to the financial benefit of those making the claim.

Mossack Fonseca, with privacy intact, could continue to make arrangements beneficial to both its clients and to Mossack Fonseca.

If the journalists are successful in withholding the leaked files, they benefit from mining this treasure trove for who they deem worthy of exposure and not incidentally, making money from their media outlets.

All without anyone holding their reporting accountable as compared to the leaked documents.

Privacy, at least in the Panama Papers case, is about power and benefits from having that power.

So long as Suddeutsche Zeitung and others can dole out snippets and tidbits of information from the Panama Papers, they enjoy the same status as having say the Snowden leaks.

Information is power!

The journalists in question merit kudos for their hard work but being the chance recipient of a leak should not translate into a life long privilege.

Or the ability to dictate unaccountable media coverage based on information the reading public can never see.

Personally I don’t trust governments, based on long experience of journalists demonstrating governments lie, cover up, etc.

Why should I suddenly turn into a gullible Gus when given unaccountable reporting from a news outlet?

If you are going to leak, leak as widely as possible!

I would say leak to Wikileaks but they are as bad as the media about holding information back from the public based for undisclosed reasons.

Where can/should people leak to assure unfettered access to all leaked materials?

I’m asking because I honestly don’t know and have no clue where to start looking.

I have exactly zero interest in empowering anyone as the censor of leaked information.

It leaks, it flows.

Jonathan Gray has started a tread to capture the unfolding stories around the #PanamaPapers leak: Best examples of data journalism and computational journalism projects around tax?.

You are at the disadvantage with these visualizations because you don’t have access to the underlying data.

It’s akin to accepting an accountant’s summary of accounts without being able to examine the details on which those summaries are based.

You may be comfortable with putting that much faith in a summary, but I’m not.

That’s not a slur on the reporters or even accountants.

You know the motto:

In God We Trust, With All Others, Verify.

Any questions?

Let me start by saying that I applaud and support all of the work done by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

The recent Panama Paper story illustrates the one point of departure that I have with the ICIJ.

Rather than providing everyone with equal access to the leaked documents, it is my understanding that the ICIJ will continue to limit access to those documents to “investigative journalists.”

I don’t question the role or work done by these “investigative journalists” on this story. They have observed remarkable operational security and produced much fuller account than the bare information would have supported.

Having said that, I have these questions:

1. How do I know these journalists found the same story I would read in the original documents?
2. How do I know these journalists made the same connections I would make for the people mentioned in the documents?
3. How is their reporting “transparent” if I can’t compare both their stories and the original documents?
4. How are journalists held “accountable” if the basis for that accountability, the original documents, remain forever secret?

Governments argue that national security, privacy, etc., are always at stake, but the history of leaks in the United States shows all those concerns to be false.

The true concerns true out to be concealment of illegality, incompetence, vanity, and a host of other unsavory motives.

From the Pentagon Papers to the Afghan War Diaries, the sky has never fallen, the Republic has not collapsed, milk has not soured across the land, etc.

I am not suggesting that reporters ever, under any circumstances, be compelled to reveal their sources, but with the Panama Papers there is a document trove with no such implications.

If I am going to inveigh for the government to be transparent in its decision making, on what basis should I hold investigative reporters to a lesser standard?

BTW, the withholding information to protect “privacy” rings just a bit hollow, considering that if anything, it was an invasion of privacy for the journalists to obtain the information. Should have been deleted on receipt if privacy was a concern.

Data Journalism Fundamentals (MOOC).

From the courses page:

The Journalism and Media Studies Centre (JMSC) at the University of Hong Kong will offer a five-session Massive Open Online Course on the fundamentals of data journalism in the spring of 2016 in partnership with Google. The MOOC will target journalists at all levels of experience as well as students. The data journalism course will be offered as one of a series of Asia-based MOOC’s on digital tools for journalism, including data journalism, interactive design and visualization.

The course began 4 April 2016 so you still have time to jump on board!

Finding data is only the first step.

Discovering relationships between people, events, actions, what we call associations in topic maps, are the flesh of your story.

The “cherry picking” implications of this tweet:

surprised me.

Wikileaks, the New York Times and the Guardian “cherry picked” the Afghanistan War Diaries, as just one example:

Most of the material, though classified “secret” at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its “uncensorable” servers. (Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation)

How that for privilege? Not only can you participate in activities that blight the lives of others but the “independent” press will protect you from exposure. Now that’s Privilege with a capital P.

I admit there is an appalling lack of coverage of major Western governments, corporations and individuals, thus far in the Panama Papers reporting but if access to the leak spreads, that should be quickly corrected.

Ahem, yes, “…if access to the leak spreads…” being the operative condition.

Not access to some of the leak. Not access to the leaks with “…harmful material…” redacted. Not access to “…relevant…” part of the leaks.

Access to all of the leaked material. No exceptions.

If we are unable to effectively participate in government without government transparency, how are we to judge media reporting without media transparency?

Adam Johnson reminds us in For U.S. Media, Victims of ISIL Terror in Europe Are 1,200 Percent More Newsworthy Than Those in Middle East, that Arabs don’t matter much to the U.S. media, in life or death.

From the post:

Since the back-to-back ISIL attacks in Beirut and Paris last in November of last year, many in media have noted the disparity in the outpouring of grief and coverage when ISIL attacks happen in Europe versus the Middle East. Recent attacks in Brussels have led others, including Salon’s Ben Norton and The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald to note a similar phenomenon: The U.S. media simply values European lives over those in the Middle East. And because neither Brussels or France are English-speaking nations or are in the greater United States, this can only lead to one conclusion: race is an essential factor when U.S. media determine what terror attacks to cover. Predominantly white countries simply matter more.

This racism is heavily informed by the U.S.’ ongoing wars in the Middle East. Since President Obama has taken office, he has launched seven bombing campaigns of Muslim-majority countries. This decades-long war positioning against the “other” has helped normalized deaths in the Middle East even beyond that of routine racism. But how wide is this disparity? I have attempted to quantify the gap in coverage using two comparable examples from Europe and the Middle East in the past six months.
…

Adam gives a thumb-nail sketch of attacks over the past six months and the resulting media coverage to arrive at his conclusion that ISIL (sic, Islamic State) attacks in Europe are 1,200 percent more newsworthy than in the Middle East.

I find Adam quite persuasive but from a critical analysis perspective, have some suggestions that would strengthen his case.

For example, expanding his six months to cover the last five years and not limit attacks to those by ISIL (sic, Islamic State).

From memory (you need to check me on this), attacks in Arab countries, in particular attacks by the United States and a number of other Western powers, receive almost no coverage at all. Attacks in some countries, not necessarily by the Islamic State, become international hype storms.

Most Western press discriminates against Arabs and their legitimate concerns in both life and death. Then wonders why anyone would become “radicalized?”

Suggestions on how to build a “discrimination against Arabs” index for pubic media?

If the Western media continues to discriminate against Arabs, it should wear that badge openly.

All of the recordings from the Logan CIJ Symposium 2016 have been uploaded to YouTube, but in its usual minimal value format.

With the exception of Edward Snowden’s address, I have organized the presentations by title, reasoning that session numbers are forgotten quickly whereas a title may persist a bit longer.

I have pasted in the summaries from sessions page to assist you in choosing which videos to view. (I recommend viewing all of them.)

Edward Snowden addresses the audience 36:22

Sessions:

Anas Aremeyaw Anas 23:33

Anas Aremeyaw Anas employs anonymity and impersonation to enter into dangerous environments to capture stories of great power and impact at enormous personal risk. This award-winning journalist exposed injustice and cruelty all over Africa and Asia and will share insights about his world-changing work.

Challenge Power I 1:14:55

We live in an era of social, economic and environmental crises; an era where war rhetoric and fear are being used to justify and increase control and surveillance. Physical and digital barriers are being erected both publicly and in secret to obscure the truth, so it is absolutely necessary to challenge power. Although highly technical research is often the methodology of choice for investigators, the acquisition of critical evidence also relies on methods both intensely personal and unique.

Anas Aremeyaw Anas employs anonymity and impersonation to enter into dangerous environments to capture stories of great power and impact at enormous personal risk. This award-winning journalist exposed injustice and cruelty all over Africa and Asia and will share insights about his world-changing work.

Anas Aremeyaw Anas, P. Sainath, moderator Gavin MacFadyen

Challenge Power 2 34:22

Investigating crimes and wrongdoing even in nominal democracies requires independence and courage. Two of the world’s most successful journalists still experience difficulties in publishing their work in the mainstream media.

Seymour Hersh investigated the US Mỹ Lai massacre of civilians, which more than any other piece of journalism helped to bring the Vietnam War to an end. Later in Iraq, he exposed torture, murder and crimes against humanity at the US military prison at Abu Ghraib. Despite countless prizes and awards, he has found himself excluded from most mainstream outlets. His latest investigation will be published this December (2015) in the London Review of Books.
Sainath Palagummi single handedly and courageously exposed major crimes in the Indian countryside where over 285,000 farmers have committed suicide. His work is widely read in Asia and he is the recipient of major awards for journalism. His work has included studies of the ignored and forgotten foot soldiers of the Indian independence movement.

Seymour Hersh, moderator Gavin MacFadyen

Can you hear me now? 1:27:47

Sources and whistleblowers have provided many of the most important scoops in recent decades. Having exposed critical information that the authorities have obscured or kept secret, these people have become the targets of intense and sustained attacks by governments, corporations and even criminal organisations. These speakers will reveal the dangers and consequences of their courageous actions.

William Binney, Duncan Campbell, Thomas Drake, Annegret Falter, Holger Stark, moderator Gavin MacFadyen

Difficult Targets 1:29:09

The NSA, BND, GCHQ, the Mafia, the Narcos and multinational corporations are all powerful targets that require especially creative and innovative investigative methods. These organised power structures have inexhaustible resources that cannot be competed with financially or technically. To have a chance to defeat these systems of power, we need to act with creativity, tenacity and courage. Effective ways to reveal the truth and outperform illegitimate power are key to reclaiming our fundamental rights to freedom, privacy and dignity. Our panelists have extraordinary stories to tell and will present their projects to inspire the audience.

Tim Jenkin, Matt Kennard, Stefania Maurizi, Paul von Ribbeck, Matthias Spielkamp, moderator Caroline Nevejan

Fighting the Global Arena 1:20:39

From journalists to techies, from artists to activists, from experts to entertainers; everybody is needed to fight for the right to privacy, transparency and revolution. Our special guests will present a spectrum of spectacular actions.

More than five years ago Julian Assange built a sophisticated submission system that both promised and delivered security for whistleblowers around the world. It has led to a virtual explosion of publicly accessible information that governments and corporations have desperately tried to conceal. Disclosures of corruption, mass murder and illegal governmental activities on a huge scale are now irretrievably in the public domain.

The battle began with WikiLeaks and expanded dramatically with the Snowden revelations. Sadly, the universality of surveillance has meant that conventional computer systems are so compromised and vulnerable that radical new solutions are required.
In defence of personal freedom and privacy, the Subgraph team has built a highly secure new operating system that will be launched at this session. This long awaited new OS will hopefully provide a framework of protection for the future.
Last but not least, Giordano Nanni will introduce the riotous cult satirical online series Juice Rap News which has helped expose hypocrisy and lies with rhymes and a humor that is recognised across the globe. For the first time in Europe, Giordano will be accompanied by NSA spokesperson General Baxter and conspiracy guru Terrence Moonseed who will perform some of their most popular episodes live on stage – in what will be Juice Rap News’s first (and possibly last) European live performance.

Diversity is key!

David Mirza Ahmad, Julian Assange, Giordano Nanni, Juice Rap News Live Show, moderator Jérémie Zimmermann

Future of OS 1:12:58

In an era of mass surveillance the need for independent, reliable and usable Operating Systems is fundamental. In previous times, political movements needed their own printing press for circumventing propaganda and repression. In the digital age we need independent Operating Systems to protect our freedom of speech and freedom of action. The creation of independent OS is both a technological challenge and a social, political and economic challenge. To protect and encrypt yet offer transparency of control, and make it easy to use for all of us, is a great challenge. Trusting hardware, software and organisational structure is an issue from building all the way to using the OS.

David Mirza Ahmad, Joanna Rutkowska, Tails, moderator Jacob Appelbaum

Juice Rap News Live 29:16

Highlights from Juice Rap News Live at the Logan Symposium, Berlin 11 March 2016. With: Giordano Nanni @thejuicemedia, Mantra and Jeremedy (Grey Ghost)

Methods and Tools for Visual Investigations 1:00:03

The Forensic Architecture group at Goldsmiths University in London is revolutionising investigative analysis. They will give a ‘roadshow’ of new and unique tools and methods. Building on architectural knowledge of the 3D physical world, the group demonstrates how the newest technologies can be used to deconstruct lies and myths by creating simulations that prove a specific argument or fact is false. Students and PhD candidates in forensics present a variety of research tools they are developing for unveiling truth in highly sensitive political situations.

Steffen Krämer, Ana Naomi de Sousa, Christina Varvia, moderator Eyal Weizman

Reports from the Front 1:31:55

While most mainstream newspapers are no longer committed to finance investigative journalism, new entities focused on revealing uncomfortable facts have managed to establish themselves and contribute significantly to the critical and charged debate. With a myriad of backgrounds and approaches, investigative enterprises are constantly being challenged to provide access to new information. Speakers from Africa, South America and Europe will demonstrate and discuss radical new methods to bring important disclosures to the public.

Nafeez Ahmed, Jacob Appelbaum, Eveline Lubbers, Natalia Viana, Martin Welz, moderator John Goetz

Today’s investigative platforms 1:32:34

Seemingly every week, new platforms are emerging on the internet both sponsored by established media, as well as new organisations supported by philanthropy and/or novel revenue models. For the first time in years of decline, serious independent reporting is being seen again. A whole new journalistic repertoire is being developed in which people can inform each other and so unite in fighting injustice. Local or global, professional or grassroots, the actions of those who experiment with new ways of reporting have vital impact and often punch above their weight. In this session the actors will present the challenges they face.

Markus Beckedahl, Simona Levi, Edwy Plenel, Rob Wijnberg, moderator Bernd Fix

Transparency vs. Protection 1:29:42

How can journalists deal with increased surveillance? Governments and corporations are investing heavily in new intrusive surveillance capabilities. Those who challenge power are being directly targeted – be they hackers, journalists or activists. Strategies to counter increased surveillance include new technologies for transparency and new technologies for protection. Also, such strategies need to include a specific structuring of organisations, use of legal frameworks, and specific media strategies.

MC McGrath, Ibrahim Mohamoud, Jesselyn Radack, Marcel Rosenbach, Richard Tynan, moderator Andy Müller-Maguhn

I wasn’t able to find a video for the closing keynote:

From History to the Future

After two days of intense focus on current and previous practices of journalism, activism and hacktivism, Gavin MacFadyen elaborates in this closing session on insights that emerged during the symposium and translates these, with help from the audience, into shared efforts and directions in the near future.

Gavin MacFadyen

Enjoy!

10 NICAR lightning talks to guide you through cats, statistical resampling, fear of math, and more by Shan Wang.

From the post:

This year’s NICAR conference was in sunny Denver, and as promised, the sessions offered a little (or a lot) for everyone, from journalists looking for guidance on a stalled FOIA processes to those in search of advanced Python training to those who need advice on refining their interactives for mobile.

To break up the intensity of the sessions, NICAR also puts on the delightful lightning talks: five-minute presentations from attendees on topics of their choice, voted on by the NICAR community. The ten talks this year ran the gamut, and despite their length, were packed with useful tips and practical tools (cats featured prominently), as well as ideas for broadening how we think about data-driven journalism. Below are the talks from this year.

The page I link to above has links for the authors and the videos embedded.

Here’s a quick list:

1. I Improved My Math Fluency, And So Can You by Ryann Grochowski Jones
2. Solve Every Statistics Problem with One Weird Trick by Jonathan Stray
3. Let lookup save you from the boring, repetitive work you’ve forgotten you’re even doing by Chris Groskopf
4. Automation in the newsroom by Ariana Giorgi
5. Regular Regular Expression Exercises for Regular People by Dan Nguyen
6. Map tiles are dead; Long live (vector) tiles! by Ken Schwencke
7. How to read 52 books in 52 weeks by Nicole Zhu
8. What I learned working on Failure Factories by Adam Playford
9. Let’s Talk About the Future of Interactive News Content by Gregor Aisch
10. Cats and Stats by Jennifer LaFleur

New conference idea:

What if the presentations at a conference were all lighting talks? With full papers and longer videos posted to YouTube?

So that speakers would skip the history, which you likely already know. Skip the lead up to what they are about to show you. And basically cut to the most interesting bits of their presentation in five minutes!

If you are captivated by the “lighting” version, then you can watch the video, read the paper, etc.

You could cover more lighting talks in a day and thus increase the value of the travel dollar for every attendee.

If that sounds too short for your idea, remember:

“If you can’t fit your idea on the back of a business card, you don’t have a clear idea.“

If that sounds unfair, remember that Richard Feynman demonstrated why the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch with an O-ring and a glass of ice.

It took Feynman 47 seconds to do that demonstration.

If anything, 5 minutes to explain your idea is overly generous.

Yes?

The Best Five Podcasts About Data Journalism by Carla Pedret.

Carla has assembled five source of podcasts about data and data journalism in particular.

I’m not the biggest fan of podcasts.

I can read several times faster than taking in audio input and I have to turn off Metal Nation Radio in order to listen.

Still, I have heard podcasts that are quite compelling and when reduced to writing, seem to have lost something essential.

Make it a point to follow up on these podcast sources and to send Carla news of any new ones.

Podcasts may not be your favorite medium either but the question is what is the best means to reach your audience.

Yes?

NICAR 2016 Slides, Links & Tutorials #NICAR16

Chrys Wu has posted a great listing of resources from NICAR 2016 (National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting).

At the very bottom of the page you will find links to tutorials, videos, presentations and tips from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

Enjoy!