The Growing Role of Data in Investigative Reporting

    by Sam Berkhead
    September 17, 2015
    Photo from Flickr.

    It’s all about the evidence.

    David Donald, a data journalist in residence at the American University School of Communication, stressed this fact during a recent talk with visiting Pakistani journalists from ICFJ’s U.S.-Pakistan Professional Partnership in Journalism.

    “When you have evidence, you get to say things like ‘I found this evidence here, can you tell me your reaction?’ — and all of a sudden, things change profoundly as a reporter.” David Donald
    David Donald. Photo from American University.

    David Donald. Photo from American University.


    “Everything I talk about is in the context of evidence,” Donald said. “Investigative reporting is about evidence; data journalism is about evidence.”

    Donald, whose investigative work with the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) exposed the lending methods that led to the 2008 U.S. financial crisis and health care providers’ pervasive overcharging of their services to Medicare patients, emphasized that data should always play a role in effective reporting.

    Here’s a look at the main points we took away from Donald’s talk:


    Have a “document frame of mind”

    To effectively use databases and documents as a journalist, Donald said it’s important to have a “document frame of mind.” Essentially, this means you need to work to find documents and data just as much as — if not more than — you work to find sources for quotes.

    According to Donald, investigative journalists Don Barlett and Jim Steele define the “document frame of mind” as the state in which a journalist always assumes that somewhere, a document or database exists on any given topic.

    “Until proven otherwise, it’s your job to figure out where that is,” he explained. “Documents and databases are often official records, so you can quote them as such. A document or database will never call you up before you’re ready to publish and say, ‘I never said that.’ A few sources try to do that, but not a document or database.”

    Numbers have a cultural context

    Donald's investigative work with the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) helped expose the lending methods that led to the 2008 U.S. financial crisis.

    Donald’s investigative work with the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) helped expose the lending methods that led to the 2008 U.S. financial crisis.

    Just as one can choose words that represent his or her personal biases, numbers and data can be equally manipulated to support a specific viewpoint without showing the full picture.

    “Just because you did the math right, doesn’t mean the number isn’t taking sides,” Donald said, emphasizing the importance of computing the median rather than the average.

    Donald cited the dispute over player salaries between baseball team owners and athletes that led to the 1994-95 Major League Baseball strike. Team owners typically reported the average, or mean, player salary to the press, which was boosted into the millions of dollars thanks to a few star players with extraordinary salaries. The players, meanwhile, reported the median salary, which removed the outlier effect, revealing that the typical player salary was much less.

    “Every baseball [reporter] back then used the average because they probably didn’t even know how to compute the median,” Donald said.

    There’s no such thing as perfect data

    When using data in one’s reporting, it’s crucial to remember that all data is inherently flawed, Donald stressed.

    “The problem with data is there’s no such thing as perfect data,” he said. “There’s always problems with the data, because somewhere, somehow, at some point, every piece of data has been touched by human hands, which makes for a high likelihood of errors.”

    Data forces the source to be accountable

    In addition to changing the way journalists write and present their information, data and evidence also profoundly affect the relationship between journalists and their sources, he said.

    “You will have evidence that the source will have to respond to or choose not to respond to — which can make them look really foolish,” Donald said. “If you have no evidence, then what you’re discussing is very general. You’ll write down whatever the source wants to tell you, and don’t know what to ask other than to say ‘What do you think about this?’ or ‘What’s your opinion on this?’

    “When you have evidence, you get to say things like ‘I found this evidence here, can you tell me your reaction?’ — and all of a sudden, things change profoundly as a reporter.”

    Sam Berkhead (@samberkhead) is IJNet’s editorial and social media intern. She graduated from St. Bonaventure University with a degree in journalism and mass communication. During college, she served as editor-in-chief of the campus newspaper, studied abroad in Northern Ireland and traveled across Europe by herself. In addition to studying Italian for 10 years, she can speak French and is teaching herself German and Russian. She is very passionate about feminism, coffee, cats, sushi and J.R.R. Tolkien.

    ijnetThis post originally appeared on the International Journalists’ Network. IJNet delivers the latest on global media innovation, news apps and tools, training opportunities and expert advice for professional and citizen journalists worldwide. Produced by the International Center for Journalists, IJNet follows the shifting journalism scene from a global perspective in seven languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, Persian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. Follow along on Twitter, Facebook or with IJNet’s free weekly newsletter.

    Tagged: center for investigative reporting data journalism ijnet investigative journalism

    Comments are closed.

  • MediaShift received funding from the Bay Area Video Coalition (BAVC), which receives support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to launch the MetricShift section to create a vibrant hub for those interested in media metrics, analytics and measuring deeper impact.

    About MetricShift

    MetricShift examines the ways we can use meaningful metrics in the digital age. We provide thoughtful, actionable content on metrics, analytics and measuring impact through original reporting, aggregation, and audience engagement and community.

    Executive Editor: Mark Glaser

    Metrics Editor: Alexandra Kanik

    Associate Metrics Editor: Tim Cigelske

    Reader Advisory Board

    Chair: Anika Anand, Seattle Times Edu Lab

    Brian Boyer, NPR

    Clare Carr, Parse.ly

    Anjanette Delgado, Gannett

    Hannah Eaves, consultant, Gates Foundation

    Ian Gibbs, Guardian

    Lindsay Green-Barber, CIR/Reveal

    Celeste LeCompte, ProPublica

    Alisa Miller, PRI

    Connect with MetricShift

    Facebook group: Metrics & Impact

    Twitter: #MetricShift

    Email: alexandra [at] rationalact [dot] com

  • Who We Are

    MediaShift is the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. The MediaShift network includes MediaShift, EducationShift, MetricShift and Idea Lab, as well as workshops and weekend hackathons, email newsletters, a weekly podcast and a series of DigitalEd online trainings.

    About MediaShift »
    Contact us »
    Sponsor MediaShift »

    Follow us on Social Media