But this post overlooks the long and impressive work in computer-assisted reporting (or precision journalism as practiced, espoused and taught by Nieman fellow Philip Meyer) that has been going on for decades.

If you take a look at the web site of Investigative Reporters and Editors http://www.ire.org and the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting (founded in 1989 and renamed in 1994) and look through its story indexes or the feature Extra!Extra! you will find numerous stories (in the hundreds if not thousands), involving both simple and complex, that have been done over the last two decades using data analysis.

Adrian Holovaty and others do impressive computer-assisted aggregations and presentations of data on the Web, but they do not do data analysis or investigative work or what has been known as computer-assisted reporting.

For a full appreciation of how computer-assisted reporting and database analysis can contribute to better journalism, take a look at the work of Sarah Cohen and Dan Keating at the Washington Post: Andy Lehren, Janet Roberts, Griff Palmer, Jo Craven McGinty,Tom Torok, Aron Pilhofer and many others at the New York Times; Tom McGinty and Maurice Tamman at the Wall Street Journal; Jennifer LaFleur at the Pro Publica and David Donald at the Center for Public Integrity; and many, many others both in the U.S. and around the world.

Brant Houston
Knight Chair in Investigative Reporting
University of Illinois
Author: Computer-Assisted Reporting: A Practical Guide
Former executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors and the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting

I do agree that “computer assisted” needs a revise to capture a different reality.

This is why I find the “Computer-Assisted Reporting” moniker irksome. It implies a certain passivity on the part of those who would make use of it. It marginalizes the process of information gathering and communication that goes into data-driven reporting and essentializes it to a tool: the computer. What if, in the days before computer ubiquity, journalists were regarded not for their investigative reporting ability, but for their remarkable adeptness at making use of a notepad and pen? “You can track information by recording it on paper with ink? You don’t say.” Notepads and pens are used to report the news, sure, but that’s not what it’s all about.

In the same way, using computers to store data or to do flashy things with numbers is not what it’s all about. The essential value of data-driven reporting is taking a volume of information and helping people to digest and understand it. This may happen with varying degrees of distillation and analysis. In its rawer forms, data-driven reporting may look like EveryBlock or the LA Times Homicide Map, which present broad and minimally edited data for users to explore. In its more distilled forms, it may focus on illuminating specific phenomena such as the NY Times “Geography of a Recession” graphic.

So is data-driven reporting journalism? Yes and no. There will undoubtedly be some misguided attempts to hop on the data bandwagon without regard to how effectively it tells a story. People will throw numbers up on a website, maybe slap on a flash interface, and then wonder why readers aren’t engaging with it. But then there will be those instances where data-driven reporting is used to show us something about the world in which we live, to elevate us beyond anecdotal experiences to see things from a more global perspective. A golden age of that? Sign me up.