You likely have heard of an increasingly popular trend called “data-driven journalism,” a style of journalism where stories are bolstered with liberal use of supporting data. Facts are substantiated not only as they can be attributed and quoted to a news source, but also to the degree they can be deducted from fair interpretation of relevant data.
Perhaps one of the most provocative practitioners of this style is Nate Silver and his staff over at fivethirtyeight.com. Originally an erstwhile sports “data geek” before moving on to practice exclusively in the political realm (the site gets its name from the current number of U.S. House members), Silver and team have become one of the most widely recognized voices in marrying narrative and numbers to create telling and insightful journalism.
The topics that receive his treatment are broad: sports, politics, the economy, financial markets, etc. On a recent day, analysis of how the Iowa caucus results changed the GOP’s chances for November success sat alongside a “betting market” appraisal of Super Bowl 50 and the amount of methane released as a by-product of oil production and transfer. Each article was well supported with data but remained inviting for math-challenged readers to access. For sure, the merits of the stories and the quality of the journalism were high. But get this – Silver and pals (and many others) were making hay here not by doing anything really new – but really, by embracing some of the classical tenets of journalism.
First, the bent toward quantitative substantiation of a story’s point recalls the style of tangible facts as the basis for any hard news story. Instead of reacting, say, to the comments of endless other news pundits whose opinions are too often treated as “news,” a Silver story routinely asserts data points that set the factual tone and parameters of the news topic in question. You might care to disagree with the interpretation of data but it is hard in such cases to disagree with the story “facts” as initially presented.
Second, the widespread use of data in making journalism invites the type of dispassionate (dare I say it?) objective appraisal that was long a hallmark in conventional journalism. It means that a story “angle” or the “points” it raises must emerge from a place where other, tangible substantiation backs it. This once was an obvious principle of journalism and as WordWrite President Paul Furiga sometimes likes to remind us from his early teachings in that profession, “If your mother tells you she loves you, make sure you get a second source to confirm it!”
But last and perhaps most importantly, quantitative knowledge fits like a glove with the natural rhythm of story. Data facts easily avail themselves to talented use in a linear communication style with a beginning, middle and end. Add in that where these facts come from are almost always documented and you’ll find “data-driven journalism” frequently is a real-time primer on the small-scale marshalling of facts and data to create effective and engaging communication.
That Nate Silver and friends are kind of the epicenter on this newly labeled “movement” perhaps is more reflective about how far we have lost our way in “doing” journalism. To be sure, fivethirtyeight.com showcases some great talent – especially at interpreting inferential statistics. But we are not that far removed from the days when most hard news was similarly anchored. To be a journalist meant you had to know numbers about something. Silver has effectively brought us full circle back to this realization and we benefit from his compelling, clear and great data stories.
______
John Durante is the marketing services director for WordWrite Communications. He can be reached at john.durante@wordwritepr.com.
