Data Journalism and Stand Up Comedy

I remember a stand up show where a comedian called Pete Holmes was lamenting the spread of iPhone and the internet, saying "You don't know something? WAIT. 2 SECONDS. YOU WILL KNOW."

On reading that back, the comedy is in the delivery, but the fact remains the same. The global ubiquity of digital technology has made information easier to get than a cup of coffee. Type anything you want into a search bar and instantly, it is presented. While the debate rages on whether this actually makes us "smarter" or not, there's no doubt we certainly have access to more knowledge than any time before in human history.

Which puts journalism in a special place.

Given that journalism is often associated with delivering information and the truth to the masses and providing a check on governments and the inner workings of society, the internet has provided a virtual smorgasbord of material for use.

In her presentation given to the CMNS3420 class this past Wednesday, Emily O'Brien presented a snippet of an analysis of data journalism done by Stamford University, and her conclusion on the topic may have summed up the shifting nature of journalism under the weight of all this new information.

She wrote: 

"[By] Utilizing data the journalists’ role shifts from being the first to break a story, to telling the audience what exactly a certain development might mean."


Instead of fulfilling the role as a first come-first serve responder to a story, (a role in which they are fiercely outmatched by on-location citizens with camera phones) journalists are instead changing their role to that of an in-depth researcher that can use the resources at their disposal to tell the story in a deeper, more meaningful way.

While not all journalists employed by papers could devote their time to this, it is a new and exciting way to report on stories previously impossible to cover, and bodes well for the future of journalism.

—

Blow my whistle baby

Yeah, just having a good think about whistle blowers today. Not this one:

But ones that leak information to the media for the public benefit.

In particular, I was tossing up whether or not it's worth it.

Is it worth it to put your reputation, career and future on the line to let the public know something that will benefit them?

Gillian Sneddon and Edward Snowden certainly thought so.

But what you or I? Would we have the same courage? It all comes down to personal choices sure, but it can't be denied that the world in general does not look kindly upon whistle blowers.

As former New South Wales Police Commissioner Tony Lauer said “Nobody in Australia much likes whistleblowers, particularly in an organisation like the Police or the Government.”

That statement might summarize the attitudes and climates whistle blowers are up against.

Look no further than Gillian Sneddon, who spoke out against a rotten Labor party figure in Milton Orkopoulos, was vilified and swept under the rug for years before finally winning an appeal and beingawarded damages.

That being said, it's not all an uphill battle.

New legislation passed this June to give greater protection to whistle blowers working in public service.

Highlights of the law include: 

• A key mechanism of new protection for whistleblowers is the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). They will be able to seek remedies where they have been unfairly dismissed or had adverse action taken against them.

• The risk of costs being awarded against a whistleblower has been alleviated. When whistleblowers seek to enforce their rights under the bill, the costs of that action (even if they lose) are now only payable by the whistleblower where action is brought vexatiously. This is an important step forward as the cost of whistleblowers seeking compensation via legal action has proven to be a major problem.

• There are now tougher penalties for reprisal against whistleblowers (up to two years in prison).

• It is now possible to make a disclosure externally (such as to the media). A whistleblower will still be protected if he goes public in circumstances where he believes on reasonable grounds that an investigation into his internal disclosure was inadequate.

• To gain protection, the bill requires the whistleblower to disclose the wrongdoing internally first.

There are a couple of issues here. Firstly, the fact the whistle-blower has to disclose wrongdoing internally first. What if the person you're supposed to disclose to IS the culprit? Where do you go then? And while they might not be able to fire you directly for leaking, you can imagine the sort of work environment you'd then have to be employed in. One of distrust and dislike.

But if it's for justice and the truth, some people might be willing to risk everything they have to let the public know.

And it's the role of the journalist to do everything in their power to help them.