Posts Tagged ‘data’


Journalists Should Tread Lightly When Projecting Election Results

(Photo Adapted From Flickr Creative Commons/Maltri)

(Photo Adapted From Flickr Creative Commons/Maltri)

Americans will receive up-to-the-minute data on Election Day through a partnership between Slate and data startup VoteCastr. Journalists and news organizations should be cautious about reporting certain information that may influence voters on Election Day, however.

Journalists are meant to influence people’s decisions through the reporting of accurate information. Whether a person is buying a car or voting for the next president, members of the public use information provided by journalists to make their decisions.

The relationship between journalists and the public is a foundational element of democracy.  Part of that relationship requires journalists to know when to give the public space. The space typically occurs on Election Day.

Journalists and news organizations closely follow voting projections and results, but are careful not to make any announcements that might interfere with the actual results of races. The projected winners of elections are traditionally not called by news organizations until a state’s polls are closed.

A partnership between Slate and VoteCastr is challenging that tradition by providing up-to-the-minute voting data from around the country on Election Day.

“Votecastr plans to fill that gap with turnout data — not exit polls — it collects on its own, from key polling places across the country, and will meld it with pre-election polling it has done, and then project a current vote total for specific races and geographies,” according to Recode’s Peter Kafka.

One of the main concerns is that these types of projections may suppress voter turnout. For example, people who are told Hillary Clinton is far behind Donald Trump in Pennsylvania may decide to stay home. Or, people told Donald Trump is far behind Hillary Clinton in Florida may decide to stay home.

Plus, the totals published by Slate – and apparently streaming on Vice News – will be only projections for Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Votecastr will not have access or know what votes were actually cast in each of those states. In other words, it will be an educated guess. Those projections and educated guesses may be wrong.

“The role of journalists is to bring information to people, not to protect them from it,” wrote Julia Turner, editor-in-chief of Slate, on September 10. “But on Election Day, media outlets usually take the opposite approach.”

Turner’s stance is cavalier. One of the main functions of journalism is to decide what information and data is and is not vital to the public. The indiscriminate publishing of information – as exemplified by WikiLeaks – can cause very real harm to people and national security.

The Society of Professional JournalistsCode of Ethics says journalists should “recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.” In other words, journalists shouldn’t publish information for the sake of publishing information.

The concern that early projections will decrease or suppress voter turnout is a hunch, according to Turner. “Academics examining the question have found no consistent effects on voter behavior,” she wrote.

There is evidence that media projections do have a “small yet significant effect in decreasing turnout” once researchers account for voter- and election-specific variables. Most social science papers examining media projections on voter turnout call the possible suppression the “West Coast effect” since voting ends much later in states like California and Washington. Research suggests this effect may be particularly important when races are close.

National polls currently show the U.S. presidential candidates from the two main political parties separated by 1 to 6 percentage points. While Slate and VoteCastr may not have the weight to change tomorrow’s election results, other journalists and news organizations should be hesitant to follow their paths.

Traditions frequently need to be reexamined, but sometime there are justifiable reasons and purposes behind those habits and actions.

Journalists and news organizations should hope everyday Americans vote based on the truthful stories and reports they published during the past two years about the candidates and their platforms – not mid-day projections.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the SPJ Ethics Committee.

Journalists Can Responsibly Use Hacked Data

Ashley Madison HackStories are starting to trickle out of the massive hack of Ashley Madison, which is touted as a dating website for people who are already married.


The hack exposed the information of an estimated 30 million people.

Obviously, people are hesitant to report and read stories based on a hack, because the data are stolen and offer little value to the public. These are fair and rational arguments, but I disagree with both.

It’s a very dangerous precedent for journalists to ignore information on the basis of whether or not it’s stolen from the owner.  As long as journalists were not involved in the actual theft of the material, they should feel free to take a look at the information to see if it’s of interest to the public.

In this case, the data is from a website that facilitates the affairs of married people. One may argue that there is no public interest in the personal lives of anyone who pops up in the data. In general, this argument is valid, but should not be generalized to the entire data dump.

For example, there is no public interest in John Smith from down the street having an affair. The situations changes when John Smith is using his government email address and/or credit card to manage his website membership, however.

The bottom line is that journalists should feel free to mine the data from hacks for information that should be elevated to the public, but those stories must be responsibly reported.

In this case, journalists should verify information and allow people accused of having an account a chance to respond to allegations. Journalists must also explain why they believe people should know about the information. The explanation must be better than to simply pander to lurid curiosity.

Finally, journalists and news organization should aim to minimize harm. Minimizing harm does not mean journalists should simply avoid reporting on important stories. All journalism, in general, creates some level of harm – ranging from discomfort to mental distress. The good of the information being brought to light should outweigh the harms.

As in many cases, the question is not whether a story should be done. The question is how to responsibly report a story.


Andrew M. Seaman is the Society’s ethics chairman. He lives and works in New York City.

Ask for Evidence and Data When Reporting on Health

My childhood doctor vaccinated me against measles, mumps and rubella as recommended by the U.S. government. A quarter century later I sat in another doctor’s office asking if the shots still protected me against those diseases.

Photographed early in 2014 in the Philippines capital city of Manila, this baby was in a hospital with measles (rubeola).  (PHOTO CREDIT: Jim Goodson, M.P.H.)

Photographed early in 2014 in the Philippines capital city of Manila, this baby was in a hospital with measles (rubeola). (PHOTO CREDIT: Jim Goodson, M.P.H.)

In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need to ask whether effective vaccines still work as intended. Even if someone’s immune system isn’t working properly, the rest of the vaccinated population should still keep the disease at bay.

We do not live in an ideal world, however.

Measles, a once-eradicated virus, is spreading across North America. Health experts put most blame at the feet of people who refuse to vaccinate themselves and their children against diseases because of unproven fears about side effects.

While journalists aren’t to blame for these parents’ refusals, we do have a responsibility to minimize harm from incorrect information. Unfortunately, news reports continue to feature doctors and others who provide unchallenged anecdotal evidence that vaccines do more harm than good.

No substance, natural or manufactured, is free of risks. But the best available medical research shows that the vaccines recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are extremely safe and effective.

Because the weight of evidence is so heavily stacked in favor of vaccines, people who are against vaccinations – so-called anti-vaxxers – should be challenged by journalists to provide data to support their claims.

As always, balanced reporting is important, but not all arguments carry equal weight.

One of the most popular myths is that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism spectrum disorders, which are a collection of developmental disabilities. This myth gained momentum when it was supported in a 1998 article in a medical journal. Since then, the 1998 paper and its author were proved incorrect time and time again.

For example, a study reported in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine, involving more than 500,000 Danish children from 1991 through 1998, found that 82 percent – or roughly 410,000 – received the MMR vaccine. Overall, 738 children – or less than two-tenths of one percent – were diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. There was no increased risk of a child being diagnosed among the children who received MMR vaccines.

There are also reports of kids having seizures and other developmental delays after a vaccination. Research shows that many of those children have Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic condition triggered by fevers and stress. Research also suggests that outcomes among kids with Dravet syndrome are similar with or without vaccinations.

People who suggest a link between vaccines and developmental conditions or severe injury should be asked to back those claims with the same quality evidence that supports vaccinations.

Especially with health issues, journalists must realize that their stories have consequences. Infectious diseases are only whispers from the past to modern U.S. parents. A 35-year-old father may choose not to vaccinate his children if a news report suggests they may be left disabled from a shot that protects against an eradicated disease.

Measles causes flu-like symptoms and a rash across the body. It’s spread through the air and is highly contagious. One measles virus infection may lead to 12 to 18 secondary infections.

About 30 percent of measles patients will have complications such as ear infections (sometimes with permanent hearing loss), diarrhea, pneumonia, brain swelling and death, the CDC warns. There’s also a risk for complications later in life.

The CDC says children should receive one dose of the MMR vaccine between 12 and 15 months of age and a second dose between ages four and six.  Most people will become immunized after the first dose; the second dose will likely protect those who didn’t respond to the first shot.

Babies younger than 12 months can’t be vaccinated against measles; they’re protected only by whatever limited immunity they may have inherited from their vaccinated mothers. Also vulnerable to measles and its complications are people with compromised immune systems, as from cancer treatment.

While a blood test confirmed that I’m still protected against measles thanks to my MMR vaccines, I continue to worry about my friends and family who are too young to be immunized or have weakened immune systems.

The Society’s Code of Ethics says journalists should seek truth and minimize harm. To me, that means we should do due diligence to make sure people have the most accurate medical information to protect themselves, their loved ones and society. As of now, the evidence says people should be immunized according to the CDC’s schedule. If others disagree, they should be required to present equally compelling evidence.


Andrew Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

 

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ