While still a relatively new and emergent field, sensor journalism shows promise; potential toward becoming an important arsenal in the journalistic weapon load out, a specialized tool to bring out for situations requiring analysis that borders on scientific.

The basis of this type of journalism relies on the sensor itself. The device, used for measuring the value of something, can take many shapes and forms. It can vary even more in price, ranging from $12 to literally thousands. But in the end, the sensor is relied upon to collect some type of numeric data. This data is used as reinforcement, a source even, to support an allegation made in a journalistic story.

And that’s where I believe sensor journalism shines most: in creating an additional source of authoritative information for journalists to seek. People in power or with specialized knowledge are often the primary targets as sources of reliable information. But data collected from sensors adds a welcome alternative – and if a story contains information from both types of sources, the story will be made all the stronger for it and become much more credible, much more solid.

At times, numbers speak louder than words. The Sun Sentinel fielded an investigative piece that won them a Pulitzer Prize using sensor-collected data. As mentioned in the Tow Center report, “Sensors on tollgates registered times and radio frequencies emitted by tags on cars driven by police passing through known locations—from which the journalists derived identities, their speeds and concluded ’criminality.” If not for sensors, this information could not conceivably come from anywhere else. There were likely no authoritative persons that journalists could coax this type of specific, foolproof evidence out of. Even if such persons existed, they’d likely only give vague “no comment” type of testimony when going on-the-record. When applied in such a way that sensors are the definitive source of information, sensor journalism truly shines through.

Another example is the story written by journalists using sensors to “detect urban particulate and carbon monoxide level” in the air. Their independent report contradicted the official government report that said the air quality was of acceptable quality, which would perhaps invite hesitation and reluctance for Beijing ever receiving the Olympics again. Still, as the Tow Center report mentions, collecting data is perfectly fine, but issues of ethics and law can rise from the use of sensors. Specifically sensors attached to hovering equipment like drones. If they fly through private property during their collection route, it could raise a whole slew of issues that really can’t be bothered with when trying to write an authoritative piece.

My outlook on sensor journalism was relatively positive – until I got to try it for myself. We made some water quality sensors that aimed to designate a body of water’s salinity level through audio cues. It was made via a do-it-yourself effort involving various low-priced parts that any citizen could legally their hands on without too much trouble. That in itself is another applicable benefit to sensor journalism – normal people can usually get their hands on materials needed to build a sensor. While lab-grade equipment and ridiculously expensive paraphernalia is always better, the results are sometimes not drastically different. We saw this evidenced in the professor’s $20 sensor off Amazon vs. a professional, several-thousand dollar Sond sensor. While the numbers in their results were quite varied, the overall message remained the same – one body of water was clearly quite terrible, while the other was much cleaner. Both machines, despite their price differences, agreed on those two general points, and sometimes, that’s enough to tell a story. Perfection might just not be in demand. So the $20 device would be still a worthy sensor for most situations.

Even so, building your own sensor can be a tremendous hassle. The way we built our water sensor was incredibly rough and amateur. Sometimes, things can just stop working inexplicably, and your left troubleshooting for a frustrating amount of time. Even the experts decided at one point to just scrap a breadboard completely, removing all the wires and starting from scratch just because finding the one small error buried in the completed wiring is far too much trouble to contend with.

However, with the sensor completed and seeing it actually applied, I was impressed that the roughshod mass of tangled wires and gadgets were able to come together and form a functioning sensor, emitting low noise for clean waters and a screeching pitch for dirtier kinds.

Is it feasible for a journalist to create his or her own sensor every time they seek to tell a story that needs self-gathered data? Probably not, but as long as it can be bought on Amazon for cheap, then using those sensors is a worthy endeavor for the low price required. But if certain data can only be acquired through the use of equipment costing hundreds or thousands of dollars, then that is point where sensor journalism becomes totally unfeasible.

Although sensors collect numbers, the fact remains that numbers do not tell stories on their own. The journalist’s analysis and explanation of those numbers are key elements in forming a complete story. But what if the journalist’s input is not enough to create a credible account? What if the audience is skeptical of the numbers collected by the journalist, who is presumed to have done his/her research but is not a masterful expert on the topic, per se? This presents a bit of a challenge for validating sensor journalism.

But as the Tow Center recommends, “on complex stories, [journalists should] work with experts.” If a journalist can corroborate their data with experts and scientists and mention this in their story, audience skepticism can be alleviated. It also helps that this verifies the journalist’s information in general. However, it can be costly to have personal samples tested by high level lab equipment. Some stories may have the budget for this. Others may not. The fact remains that the process of “partnering with experts to design and implement their sensing processes” is “especially important for investigations where journalists are aiming to produce data for comparison with legal standards or health effects.”

Like with the Mystic River Watershed Association, it’s impossible to field test every body of water they’d like to within a reasonable time frame. There are limits to what journalists would be able to test – most likely, they’d find themselves far too short of manpower to obtain the amount of data they actually seek to write a formidably solid story.

As evidenced in the cicada sensor story, crowdsourcing is on possible solution. But what if that story received far fewer responses than it did? What if barely anyone took up the call to arms and created their own sensors the help? Would the story not have been dead in the water? Crowdsourcing, while incredible if it works out, is not consistent or reliable enough to be a journalistic staple.

In a way, sensor journalism is a natural evolution, a natural progression for the profession to lean toward. In the era of big data and of the internet, people have become skeptical. Quotes from people in fancy suits alone won’t cut it when there is juicy information waiting to be data mined in some fashion.

Cold, hard numbers, after being placed into context by a journalist’s input, can add an astounding amount of credibility and power to a story. Sensors may just be the only path available for digging up numbers that may otherwise never be uncovered, and I think the problems they face, be it ethical, legal or otherwise, will eventually be cleared up to pave the way for a bright new supplemental source in journalism.