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

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.