Before I reflect on our experience with sensors and the future of sensor journalism as a viable, new medium, I want to share my previous experience with sensors as a journalist. Over the last two summers, I worked for ABC News in Los Angeles as a production assistant, desk assistant and producer for their various shows and website.

During my two summers of work, I witnessed sensor journalism in action several times. Droughts, floods, record high temperatures and record low humidity levels were major storylines for all the news that was originating out of the western U.S. over the last two years.

The sensors that we were independently using in the field drove our stories by giving us statistics or interesting visuals that were perfect for television. The most memorable event was when one of our correspondents reported live from Death Valley when the highest recorded temperature of all-time was almost topped. The correspondent relied on the thermometer that was posted on a Ranger Station’s roadside jumbotron, but also brought her own thermometer that was used to give the viewer a separate source of information.

While sensor journalism does afford journalists a new way to present and communicate data, we do have to be cautious about how much we rely on our sensors, and more importantly, ourselves. Journalists have the capability to independently gather and report data, but most journalists are not scientists or even close to being experts in regards to the things we are testing/measuring using sensors.

Alexander Howard summarized the journalist’s struggle with data and sensor journalism perfectly in this excerpt from his journal published on the TOW Center’s website:

“While the potential of data journalism is immense, the pitfalls and challenges to its adoption throughout the media are similarly significant, from digital literacy to competition for scarce resources in newsrooms. Global threats to press freedom, digital security, and limited access to data create difficult working conditions for journalists in many countries. A combination of peer-to-peer learning, mentorship, online training, open data initiatives, and new programs at journalism schools rising to the challenge, however, offer reasons to be optimistic about more journalists learning to treat data as a source.”

Howard’s assertion that the rise and reliability of data/sensor journalism will rely on a combination of peer-to-peer learning and collaboration is completely accurate. The only way data journalism can become a viable and reliable form of communicating information is through crowd sourcing and continued use of the scientific method.

Despite the possible pitfalls of sensor journalism, the opportunities that are born from it are extremely promising and valuable.

If journalists are able to use, build and create new instruments for gathering data related to weather, water quality, environmental issues that affect the senses (as Lily talked about in class), etc., it could possibly revolutionize the way journalists report and shape the news because we will no longer have to rely on the other entities to feed us information.

For most of recent history, journalists have relied on data and information that was created and supplied by the government or corporations. The potential for journalists to bypass government agencies and corporations and come up with independent findings is an opportunity that cannot be wasted. Our ability to create sensors and use them has given journalists, and citizens, the ability to hold those in power accountable and support each other in a meaningful way.

Although journalists already do these kinds of things, having the ability for anyone at anytime to rely on sensors and sensor journalism to promote or drive change is extremely important.

Sadly, the DIY sensors that can be built by an average person, or journalist, cannot be deemed reliable enough. Even the simplest tests, like our water conductivity test, can produce results that I would be skeptical about. As technology becomes more reliable, the lack of trust in our instruments will fade away. Unfortunately, our methods are reliant on technology that isn’t completely reliable, but hopefully that will change soon.

The interpretation of data is also an issue that journalists will have to wrestle with as sensor journalism increases in utility. The way one person interprets data can be totally different than the next based on the biases that are present.

Everyone can interpret data in a different way based on their own biases, but what is even harder to deal with is finding a way to present data in a way that doesn’t show that bias to your audience.

This is an issue that requires journalists to exercise neutrality, but working on a piece that deals with data can lead some to present data in a way that helps their point of view or provides a better headline.

Sensor journalism is in its infancy, but its potential for changing our industry is immense. If the journalism industry can change and adopt some principles of scientific research, our work will be more interesting, accurate, and have a bigger impact than ever before. Through collaboration, fact checking, testing multiple times, and utilizing developing technology, journalism could be a completely different industry in the future.

As Howard says, “Complemented by human wisdom and intuition, data journalism still won’t save the world or news, but it will help us all understand it better.”

undefined