There are many different tools that can enable someone to reach an audience. Depending on your context, objective, and specific demographic can all influence the writer (or whoever wishes to share information) in determining which is best suited for their desired purpose. This week, we looked at three different types of media: a webcomic, a conference paper and an article from ProPublica. Each of these different types of media are able to innately provide different means of reaching certain demographics efficiently. Unfortunately, they also possess their own innate drawbacks as well.

The webcomic, “We Are AI”, by Julia Stoyanovich and Falaah Arif Khan is an effective way to introduce readers to a desired topic, while simultaneously keeping the reader engaged. Comics allow the reader to absorb information through text, which is then further compounded through infographics, or pictures. By using multiple ways to transmit information, a comic can effectively help the reader learn and take in the information. Another benefit to a comic, is that It can allow you to express complex topics in a more informal way, with usage of figures of speech like analogies. In “We Are AI”, the Authors deftly navigate the complex topics of algorithms and AI. An effective example of this is the comparison of algorithms to baking. By taking something the reader is familiar with, and replacing it with something else, the authors enable the reader to naturally understand the consequences of Ai, not just How it works. This also increases readability of the content. It removes all industry jargon that could confuse and instead uses a more refined approach through contextual association. With all of these benefits, naturally there are downsides. If someone is not familiar with the format of a comic, it can be hard to understand which bubble to read first. It also is limited in scope. Because information is divided between text and graphics, it is very difficult to expand on topics due to lack of space, else you would have too long of a comic. While comics are effective in introducing an audience to new information in forms that are easy to digest, it can become difficult to go deeper into detail and expand further on certain topics. To overcome this, Stoyanovich and Khan released multiple comics, each tackling a different aspect.

The article “Machine Bias”, published by ProPublica, is another medium that is effective in disseminating information. Newspapers like ProPublica often already have a following. Their targeted audience is most often the one who is seeking information. Much of the time, all they need to do is provide a catchy title for the particular topic. However, articles struggle with a similar problem that comics due, which is limited space. To prevent the reader from losing interest articles must remain succent. Articles and also introduce graphical information through graphs and photos, but they are only explained through reference from the text or by a short description. Another pitfall of articles is that they are freely able to cite claims without further explanation. This labor is handed off to the reader, who must travel to the cited source and read more about it there.

The AMC conference paper solves the pitfalls of the two latter media, at the expense of succinctness, readability, and graphics to keep the reader engaged. This form has the highest barrier of entry, but also provides the highest content of information. The Authors Cooper, A. Feder, et al., are free to use industrial jargon, reference other sources, and expand on topics as they see fit. They are not limited in size and space, although it is helpful to remain mindful.

Who you want to reach, and how much information you’d like to deliver are all influential factors someone must take into consideration when disseminating information. Each medium will have its benefits which consequentially means there are also drawbacks.

  One key aspect that elicits the importance of data journalism is the role it has undertaken in society. One of the main functions of a journalist is to always question. And data, in the context of journalism, provides a substantiative resource that fills the void created when questioning whether something is credible or not. It provides a sense of rationality to the reader when the journalist makes a claim. However, it’s important to note that as data journalists, when you begin to work with data you are inherently using a tool rooted in bias– Culture, context and society are woven into data, whether recognized or not. And when presenting this data to the public, through a medium that is often perceived as unbiased, it is your responsibility to address this. The role of the data journalist in today’s society is to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence for any particular claim, and it is their responsibility to be inclusive as possible; particularly when addressing social issues.

In Chapter 2 of Queer Data, Kevin Guyan supports this by quoting, “ …data collection processes… are productive and highly political practices though which (only) certain LGB(TI)Q populations are counted.” As a data journalist, it is important to recognized this, especially if you are covering topics concerning the community. It should be noted that simply recognizing this bias is not sufficient. Ethical factors of collection, awareness to gaps in the data, protecting at-risk communities from harm, advocating for inclusion within the dataset, are all contributing factors a data journalist should keep in mind. Failing to account for these only furthers the cultural paradigm that pushes these community to the fringes of the social spotlight.

This idea directly leads to what Criado-Perez describes in “Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men”. When we don’t address these “cultural norms” embedded into data, it is possible to create situations that directly harm individuals. Criado-Perez notes that in a 2016 paper there was “significantly higher transcription error rates for women than men.” Not addressing gender disparities has a significant impact on the livelihood of women. As a data journalist, if you were to use this paper, it’s your responsibility to uncover and address this disparity to prevent further “credibility” of that dataset. If you are not questioning the data, you are only doing half of your job as a data journalist.

Alex Howard highlights this concept in his talk, “Data Journalism in the Second Machine Age”. He states, “gathering, cleaning, organizing, analyzing, visualizing and publishing data to support the creation of acts in journalism.” If we use data left uncheck, we are not fulfilling our role as data journalists in modern society. It is the data journalists responsibility to account for any embedded bias, to ensure safe and fair use of data and the populations therein.

            Link to Article

            One of my very first exposures to Data Journalism was the article, “Life in the Camps: The Rohingya Crisis” by Simon Scarr and Weiyi Cai. I remember the emotional impact of seeing the rapid expansion of settlement camps over time. This emotional response could never have such an impact if it were to be displayed as charts or numerically represented. It was a reminder that behind all the data, the numbers, the computations and trends in the data that there are human beings; people who experience the gamut of human emotions just like you and me.

            This emotional component is where I believe this article provides so much value– much more than I can put into words. While of course, any article that provides exposure to the plight of a group of individuals provides a great value to society, but if the article can transcend its numerical representations, not only is it of greater value to the reader, but also the ones that are personally affected.

            If you are unfamiliar with the Rohingya, I will provide a an extremely non-exhaustive summary: The Rohingya are an indigenous ethnic group belonging to the northern region of Myanmar. In the 1980s they were essentially labelled as foreigners in their own country, denying the freedom of movement and any basic human rights. They even banned the use of the “Rohingya” and referred to them as “Bengalis” essentially ascribing them to the neighboring sovereign state. Myanmar, and then Burma, has been accused of Ethnic Cleansing and genocide several times in the past but It wasn’t until 2017 when the military, who was essentially controlling the “democratic puppet state” escalated conflict, and the issue saw increasing international attention.

            It is here where data journalism plays such an important role in reporting. The article presents images of the same location over an extremely short period of time (three months!). It shows how expansion of displacement camps and how much they’ve grown over time. But the authors do not stop there. They present how these mini cities lack access to roads and how they must rely on bamboo bridges to transport essential items to their camps. They show the extent of overcrowding by providing visual maps of the limited access to latrines per clustered shelters. They even go as far to show that not even every can access the 7,839 latrines located both within “official” limits of the camp and outside surrounding clusters. The article even doesn’t stop there, they provide many instances and issues these camps are facing, all accompanied by geospatial pictures, and snapshots of life within the camp. If this information were simply presented on a chart of a table, it would not produce such visceral “emotional information” that the images bring forth.

            By introducing an emotional component, the authors can, in my opinion, provide more information on the data. Although it is intangible, and might be considered a bias, this emotional aspect introduces concepts of humanity, of struggle, of empathy—this numbers and figures tend to erase. This in turn benefits those experiencing this tragedy and the reader. It creates a sense of urgency and lowers the threshold of inhibition to take a clear stance. I feel when concepts are displayed on such a level, it is easier call out and ask International Leaders to address the issue, and that is exactly what happened. Unfortunately, Myanmar experienced another coup in 2021 resulting in the dissolution of the pseudo-democratic state, and much of what these people are facing rarely comes to light. But this article goes to show how much of an impact the visualization of data can have, compared to numbers and figures and how it can inspire global movements and create accountability.

To me, “the public” can be defined as any grouping of people who interact with one another, and has a resulting communal effect. This can range from a small group like the nuclear family to a much larger one, like those of sovereign nations. I’d like to offer a more concrete definition; however, the concept of the public is nebulous and abstract in nature. It changes depending on the scale you view it. One thing that strings these groupings together, regardless of their size, is an emphasis on the interaction and the consequences that arise. But before we begin a discussion on the public, it is also important to call attention to “the private”. Directly opposed to the collective’s interests, “the private” can be defined as personal interests– interactions that would benefit the individual, rather than the whole. This is not to say that the private and the public operate as opposites and have no effect on one another. And while, as Dewey puts it, “…the consequences of an action are confined, …, mainly to the persons directly engaged in it.” (Dewey p. 12), it does not mean that these consequences cannot bleed into the public. These actions may go unnoticed, but the consequences can have resounding effects. Dewey even states that, “private acts may be socially valuable both by indirect consequences, and by direct intention.” (Dewey p. 14). While the interests of the two might seem to be in contention, I believe that there is great synergy between “the public” and “the private”.

———-

 With the advent of technological advancements, groups who did not have the capacity to previously interact now can do so, resulting in much of the focus taking place on the larger end of the spectrum. Dewey states that this is due to “the consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, …[generating] constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities.” (Dewey p. 114).

 Prior to this, the face of “the public” mostly consisted of small localities like townships. These communities, through the pragmatic lens of Dewey, had “political objectives” that consisted of, “roads, schools, and the peace of the community,” (Dewey p. 111). The creation and care of these social services are directly influenced by the public’s social interactions. When people congregate and decide to live and interact together as a unit, whether it be as a nuclear family or as a township, problems and consequences are sure to arise. The desire to cope and abate these consequences results in the creation of regulatory systems of control, and as this social system continues to evolve and grow at the behest of the collective, it will result in the coalescence of “The State”.

———-

              Now that we’ve introduced the conception of “The State”, we can begin to discuss how its regulatory role has impacted the public’s resources and communal spaces, known as the commons. The commons exist as a natural consequence of human interaction. Because conflicts will also naturally arise, a regulatory system known as “The State” will also be born. The question of whether it is a solution or a tragedy seems, to me, to be disingenuous. The commons will always exist as long as humans interact with one another. How we use this resource depends entirely on “us”. Dewey states that, “Everything that is distinctly human is learned.” (p. 154). Because of this, man has the capacity to reason with his natural instincts. This ability to reason directly affects how we use, allocate and distribute our resources. Perhaps unfortunately, we often relegate this responsibility to the system of “The State”—almost to the degree where, as Baviskar states, “[it has a] monopoly over urban land.” (Environment and Society p. 118). This relegation of resources and capital has given The State direct control and influence over the commons. Akin to the desires of townships past, human interaction will always create a desire or rather a need for social projects.

Depending on the system in place, is it the private or the public which benefits most from the commons. Here it is where I say the question concerning the morality of the commons becomes disingenuous. If you were to ask the community of Jhuggi of Delhi, the answer becomes obvious. However, if you were to ask those who individually benefit from it (i.e., the private, or in this case, the bourgeois), the answer changes. The reason I designate these the bourgeois as a private group is because of its exclusionary nature; denying the right of access to the commons directly goes against the communal ideology at the heart of the public. The current nature of The State, creates a principle of elaboration, resulting in a group that is inherently marginalized.

 Herein lies the formation of what Moten and Harney might consider, the undercommons. (I would like to note that the concept of the undercommons is not limited to the marginalized. The concept transcends this idea, while challenging traditional structures of power.) The state, due to its relegation of finite resources directly creates the marginalized, which can be seem in the struggle of the Jhuggi; interpellation becomes fruitless when The State decides what is “incompetent, unethical, and irresponsible, [bordering on criminality].” (Moten and Harney p. 36). If human nature is in fact learned, as Dewey states, the idea set forth by Moten and Harney seems to become viable, and I suppose this compounds the idea of the disingenuous nature of the question. The question becomes disingenuous because it is simply a question we should refuse to answer—we should not consider which is the better descriptor of the commons, or even the contention of the space. Rather, we should consider the creation of a system where these descriptors of the commons don’t even make sense. The presentation of this idea might seem harmful, but it is seen as harmful to everyone. As Moten and Harney said, “ …no one will really be able to embrace the mission of tearing “this shit down” until they realize that the structures they oppose are not only bad for some of us, they are bad for all of us.” (Moten and Harney p. 10). We should seek to create a system where there balance between the private and the public, the individual and the collective– Where there is no “Us versus Them” and all that remains is “I and Us”.