Mind the gap: Advocacy journalism fills a void

By now, it’s safe to say that the digital ecosystem is shaking things up for journalists. Traditional journalists are turning into brands (Ezra Klein, Vox and Nate Silver, 538, to name a few). Journalists are getting paid for clicks. Social media tools are creating a new breed of reporting through conflict journalism and citizen journalists—coverage that bleeds into news reporting and advocacy. And mission-driven social media sites (like Upworthy) are partnering with advocacy organizations to create serious, in-depth original content, as the Nieman Journalism Lab reported last month. Phew.

Mind the gap: Advocacy journalism fills a void

And now advocacy organizations are getting into the mix. They’re taking the reins by exposing, researching and writing about the issues they care about in a genre of journalism known as advocacy journalism. Advocacy journalism has been around for a while (remember muckraking?). But today’s digital landscape seems ripe for innovation by those that want to take the genre further.

A recent article by Dan Gillmor in Slate’s Future tense project provides a thought-provoking and current look at the nexus of advocacy and journalism today, one that made me want to dig a little deeper into the subject to see where the field is at and what hurdles it faces.

Advocacy journalism is an interesting genre. On the one hand, it seems like a big deal—by injecting a point of view, it appears, at first blush, to upend the sacrosanct “objective reporting” model that is the foundation of traditional journalism. But in fact, today’s so-called traditional journalism is itself rife with points of view (reporters are human, after all, and routinely bring their personal perspectives to the questions they ask and the subjects they cover).

It’s no coincidence that, at the same time as advocacy journalism is getting more attention, investigative reporting in traditional media—the bread and butter of deep, immersive journalism—is diminishing due to shrinking newsroom budgets, capacity, and interest. (The American Journalism Review wrote about it in 2010, and things don’t look that much rosier if you read about revenues and ad dollars in Pew Research Center’s State of the News Media, 2014 report or the internet marketing firm Vocus’s 2014 State of the Media.)

So, resources for investigative reporting in traditional media may be diminishing, but the need itself certainly hasn’t. The immediacy of the internet and social media reporting make the gaps left by traditional news organizations more transparent than ever before. It has opened up the playing field for those who want, and need, to write about social change, and see advocacy journalism as yet another tool for driving that change. It is here that advocacy organizations are stepping in.

Gillmor mentions the Upworthy partnership with Human Rights Watch, Climate Nexus and ProPublica, but he also reminds us of the work of the libertarian Cato Institute, and the ACLU, noting that these organizations are not just writing about their issues—they have invested in hiring talented, investigative journalists to do the work.

One of my earlier posts this year discusses how advocacy organizations are harnessing social media to effect social change on their own terms (I wrote about the MIT Center for Civic Media’s study of the media coverage of the Travyon Martin tragedy, and of how it was framed and defined in part by digital-savvy advocacy organizations). In the same way, advocacy organizations are equipping themselves with investigative journalists to define the things that need fixing in our society, again, on their own terms.

Transparency and bias concerns apply to all reporting, not just advocacy journalism

As with any form of journalism (see a post that I wrote about the importance of trusted messengers correctly reporting the facts), there are always legitimate concerns around the ability of the “reporter” to be transparent about the perspective and bias that he or she brings to a story, especially when money comes into the picture (for example, a journalist embedded in an advocacy organization writing about an issue that is driven by a funder). But one can easily make the argument that journalism has never been immune to this predicament. Media brands are, after all, owned by corporations—remember Michael Bloomberg’s takeover of his newsroom and Murdoch’s editorial biases? The issue is not so much that money is paying for journalism (it always has). Rather, the issue is one of transparency and fairness (something Gillmor acknowledges in his online book, Mediactive).

Most recently, advocacy journalism was roundly dismissed by Buzzfeed’s Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith. When Eric Hippeau, a venture capitalist (and early investor in Buzzfeed), sat on a panel at the Columbia School of Journalism and asked Smith about the fine line between different forms of journalism and advocacy, Smith responded, “Um, yeah, I hate advocacy. Partly because I think, you know, telling people to be outraged about something is the least useful thing in the world.” (The video is here and and a good article with more on Buzzfeed is here.)

That’s kind of ironic given Buzzfeed’s public missteps and its association with the Koch brothers on the issue of immigration reform. I’m not saying that the partnership is in and of itself a concern (Slate’s Dave Weigel described it as a “pro-immigration reform” panel that was very much in keeping with the Koch brothers’ longstanding interest in the issue). But the association is not one to be ignored, either, particularly from a man who claims to hate advocacy. I’m still coming around to the idea that “Buzzfeed” and “journalism” can be conjoined. I don’t say that to be snarky—I say that to mean that all lines are blurring, including newstainment sites like Buzzfeed that are reinventing themselves in the digital journalism mold, whatever that is.

Medialens has a good take on the back-and-forth skepticism around advocacy journalism (“All Journalism is ‘Advocacy Journalism’ “) and offers some clear-eyed perspective by pointing to numerous examples of how ‘non’ advocacy journalism exhibits bias (ranging from uber-left Ira Glass’s omission of the U.S. role in Guatemalan genocide to Jeff Bezos’s 2013 purchase of the Washington Post alongside Amazon’s $600 million cloud-computing deal with the CIA—on the heels of its decision to stop hosting WikiLeaks in 2010).

Journalism is changing: traditional media gatekeepers are going away

As Gillmor points out (and as I’ve written written previously), back in the day, traditional media were largely gatekeepers to reporting. If you were an advocate or an organization with a story and a point of view, you had to get a reporter’s interest and rely on that person to pitch it to an editor. To stand the best chance of success, you had to do the research, get the facts straight, frame the narrative, and package it up so that a reporter could understand it, pick it up, and pitch it. Those days are disappearing, and in their place is a new frontier of blurry gray lines of people and perspectives, all vying for a chance to shape the news agenda of the next hour. Investigative reporting is what gives all of us perspective, makes us take a collective deep breath, and think beyond that next hour.

It’s unsettling, but also an opportunity to fill in the gaps left by the old guard, as long we do it right. So, what’s right?

Doing it right: some things should never change

I recall reading (and tweeting) about Upworthy’s announcement when I read Nieman Lab’s post last month. Given that I work in a policy and advocacy organization that has a keen interest in seeing its point of view accurately and widely expressed in the media, I myself wondered how we could inject ourselves into a similar partnership. And, if we could, what we would say, how we would separate our social passion from the hard and complicated truths that spell out complex political realities? For me, it raised more questions than I could answer. But it’s tremendously exciting to see where others are going.

I’ll be curious to see how (or if) these partnerships help fill the void left by the diminished investment in investigative reporting in traditional newsrooms. And I’m also eager to see what new best practices emerge as a result. But regardless of how things change, the responsibility of transparency has never been greater. And all of these changes add up to the same principles that should never, ever change in journalism—report the facts, be clear and transparent about your point of view, and tell people where your money is coming from.

Mapping data on the influence of traditional and digital media for social change

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old black Florida high school student who was killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012, spurred one of the most widely reported, painful and controversial public conversations on race and social justice in recent memory. The story started as a local news piece, and quickly morphed into a national debate in newspapers and radio stations; on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and other social media channels; on front stoops, in office cubicles, and at kitchen tables;  across marches, rallies and demonstrations; and through online petitions and campaigns. These events coalesced and influenced the actions of news organizations, citizens, politicians and thought leaders in a very public way. This offline/online “networked” public discourse was a far cry from the analog (print, radio) news model of the past.

Understanding how information and news networks relate and influence one another helps you decide where to take your message, and to thus influence and help set the agenda for public debate. This is where today’s social change organizations will succeed or fail in their efforts to remain relevant and effective agents of change.

The Battle for Trayvon Martin: Mapping a Media Controversy Online and Off-line” study analyzes, piece by piece, each facet of the intersection between the offline and online reactions, advocacy, citizen journalism and organized media coverage of the Trayvon Martin news event, and presents an analysis that takes us to the very epicenter of the intersection between media coverage, online and offline activism on both a personal and grassroots level, and the results through the lens of public discourse. This pioneering February, 2014 study was authored by Erhardt Graeff, Matt Stempeck and Ethan Zuckerman of the MIT Center for Civic Media. The goal of the study is to analyze the evolution of the Trayvon Martin story and to understand the role that activists in how the story played out across offline and online media channels .

Using data to quantify influence in public discourse

To the best of my knowledge, the authors are doing something that no one has done before for traditional and digital media (the methodology will give you a headache, in a good way)—they attempt to quantify and measure far beyond the “clicks” on articles that many of us traditionally use to measure engagement and, from that, to glean our influence over the message (I know I’m over simplifying but not by much).

Rather, they map the spread and cross-pollination of those ideas across all media (offline and online, traditional and participatory) and make correlations around consumption (who is clicking) and engagement (what they do and share afterwards), tracking it all back to the message (how does all of this effect how analog and digital news outlets cover the issue). It’s a fascinating cycle, and one that any organization interested in shaping public opinion and effecting social change would be better served to learn.

This post attempts to translate the findings of the study into takeaways that organizations who focus on social change can use to better understand the correlation between traditional, digital and social media today.

First, let’s take a look at one of the most helpful parts of the study—an analysis of the journalism ecosystem of today.

Yesterday’s traditional news gatekeepers are gone—replaced by “the networked public sphere.”

To be effective, social change organizations need to understand how to work and communicate in what the study defines as the “ecosystem” of news and information today.

I think of this in broader terms—to me it’s more of an information ecosystem. Regardless, it is not the topdown gatekeeper model from back in the day of print news—the managing editor, the reporter, and you—cultivating a personal relationship with a network of journalists to pitch your story. Don’t get me wrong, that world exists. But it has expanded by so much that if you don’t understand where else others are engaging, you’ll be talking to an empty room, albeit a virtual one.

The study underscores this by helpfully describing the new world of media as an ecosystem rather than an environment. The distinction may be lost on some of us, but the definition the authors present is clear.

“[Today’s media ecosystem] is not monolithic or hierarchical—[rather] dynamic networks of media linked together by transmedia audiences [those who hop from one media and social platform to another—my take] coalescing around particular stories at particular times, [following] literal hyperlinks [to seek] the most influential source at a given moment.”

So what comprises digital media today? The study emphasizes both professional content (journalists) and amateur content (“citizen journalist” bloggers, for example). Add to this, everyone—those who write 50-word posts on Facebook that get shared, Tweeted and discussed; 140 characters on Twitter, those who post Instagram photos and opinions; the discussions on Reddit, etc.). The authors describe this as “the networked public sphere.”  And it’s a big universe with lots of moving parts. If you’re trying to control it, give up (that’s yesterday’s model). If you’re trying to be a smart influencer, read on.

The traditional gate-keeper role of the media has been upended by the democratization of information, which gives social change organizations the opportunity to seize and set the agenda of public discourse.

What’s cool about this networked public sphere model, and critical for social change organizations to understand, is that it presents unheralded opportunities for these organizations to actually set the agenda for public discourse. As noted above, the traditional gate-keeper role of the media has been upended (to a degree) by the democratization of information. If social change organizations (and more importantly, the individuals who serve as their advocates and ambassadors) choose to engage in digital media (carrying out conversations and sharing information on Twitter, Facebook; pushing cultivating relationships and content with bloggers, etc.,) their message becomes the news, and they get to frame it.

Use social media effectively and your message becomes the news—you get to frame the debate.

The study references recent media research around the revolution in Egypt (2010), and likens the Trayvon Martin story to that revolution, in terms of how it played out across all media and public dialogue. For example, the authors cite how Twitter’s #egypt hashtag reflected a blend of both personal political expression and a more conventional media push around a central message. To me, the Twitter conversation represents a hybrid of these formerly distant messaging cousins (the individual and the media outlet).

Think of it this way: Twitter users pushed out their own message about the revolution framed in a way that expressed their common sentiment, then the more “authoritative” (traditional) media outlets began reporting on that “framed” message, and that particular framing was—in turn—disseminated even further by the readers of those outlets. This is one way in which social media is influencing how even traditional news media are shaping and forming the message behind a story.

Data tools used to track and analyze coverage

To trace the path, evolution and influence of the Trayvon Martin story, the authors use Media Cloud and Controversy Mapper (which are, by the way, two tools developed by the authors in conjunction with Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.) This is good stuff (case in point: Controversy Mapper’s data visualization on SOPA/PIPA)—imagine being able to analyze not just what the media is covering but how (the message, the interpretation, the framing, the influence) in a rigorous, quantitative way. Well, they did that.

Media Cloud collects articles from more than 27,000 mainstream media outlets and blogs, and follows and tracks links mentioned in these sources to explore the coverage even further. Archive.org’s TV News archive helped the authors analyze broadcast TV (they mine transcripts of broadcast TV). On the digital side, the authors also used Google Trends to analyze searches, General Sentiment to track Tweets and hashtags, and the url tracking and shortening tool, bit.ly.

Data that the authors examined

First the broader media coverage: social media and professional news outlets. The authors  examined the number of times the story was referenced, Tweets and hashtags, TV, Google searches for the subject, location of coverage (e.g., front page indicating editorial prioritization) in national papers, and the public’s online activism (for example, a petition on change.org). The methodology and data collection were far more involved than my crude summary attempt. Because the goal of this post is to translate the study for a more general audience, I don’t do the methodology much justice. It merits a closer read.

Trayvon Martin

Let’s shift to the Trayvon Martin story. As you know, this unfolded offline initially—it was local—hyperlocal at first, narrowly framed and, as the authors describe it, “a fight between two people in an area known for occasional violence, stood little chance of attracting significant media attention.”

An initial amount of national media coverage gets returns

Why then, didn’t the story die? The difference was the immediate and unrelenting efforts of the Martin family to share their story. By quickly retaining Benjamin Crump, a pro bono civil rights attorney (interestingly, one who, according to the study’s authors, ascribed the failings of a previous probono effort in part to an inadequate media publicity strategy) who brought on a local attorney who, in turn, recruited a pro bono publicist (Ryan Julison). Julison was able to get coverage from two national media outlets, which later snowballed into other national media.

From a fraternity listserv to a national online petition: Leveraging online activism yields big results

According to the study, the story (spurred by the initial limited national coverage) was mentioned on a Howard University listserv. A Howard law grad got involved and launched a Change.org petition. His rationale was the lack of national coverage. He emailed his petition to other students at the university. Yep, email is how this got started.

More national coverage, social organizations step in, and Change.org becomes “an early leader” in media attention

The Huffington Post, Global Grind, a self-described multi-racial news and lifestyle website and activist organizations (ColorOfChange and the Black Youth Project) began covering the story, described by the authors as “early amplifiers.” As a result, the change.org petition began picking up speed (growing from 217 initial signatures on day one—March 8—to over 30,000 signatures five days later (March 13).

Change.org attracts celebrities, and even more attention

Something interesting happened on the sixth day after the petition was launched. A change.org employee asked a target group of celebrities whom he thought would be sympathetic to the cause to share the petition with their fans (Mia Farrow, Spike Lee, to name a few). They were interested, and they did share—to the tune of over 80,000 signatures a few days later (a 900% increase in signatures over the course of 3 days, according to the authors of this study).

The shift to mainstream media as the news authority on the story

The pattern until March 17 (when the publicist released 911 tapes to the public and the media) was as follows: low-profile, hyperlocal news story; narrow coverage on a national level that spurs a rapid rise of personal and social activism; which yielded high-profile coverage by celebrities and a resulting increase in national coverage.

When the probono civil rights attorney (Benjamin Crump) released the 911 call to the media, coverage—particularly in mainstream broadcast radio and TV—predictably mushroomed. The authors of the study specifically point out that the audio nature of the 911 call may have made it more appealing for radio and TV to cover.

But social change and race-based organizations and celebrities continue the momentum

Reddit’s /r/blackculture subreddit featured the change.org petition and Reverend Al Sharpton’s involvement continued the publicity. By now, civil rights and political leaders all over the country were taking up the charge through political demonstrations and rallies. The authors cite the Million Hoodie March in New York (spearheaded by a digital strategist) as a catalyst for more coverage. Interestingly, the authors point out, larger media didn’t feature the story on their front pages until after the march, positing that the actuality of the march made for an easier story to cover.

News hooks in traditional media need “real” events

There’s an interesting pattern here of mainstream media not covering the Martin story until something “real” happens (the authors describe these as “actualities”). Note how radio and TV began covering the story after an audio recording was released, and front page newspaper coverage began after an actual march took place. After Zimmerman was finally taken into custody (another “real” event) six weeks after the shooting, newspaper coverage peaked.

And then, of course, the President’s March 23 statement (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” brought all news coverage to its peak.

Who influences how a message is framed by national media outlets?

Let me answer that simply—it’s not the media outlets. Nowadays, the spin on a story often takes place outside of national media news sources. Frequently, by the time they report on something, they’re simply capturing what has already happened.

So if you want to influence how the a major news outlet writes a story, your message can begin in social and digital media, and with your activists and ambassadors.

Let’s look at how the conservative movement was able to influence the debate. The study cites how one notable conservative blogger (Dan Linehan, of the Wagist blog) claimed that Trayvon was a drug dealer. As you would expect, this message was spread and picked up by like-minded right-leaning blogs, and eventually did make its way to mainstream media (the Miami Herald), where it was amplified. So, regardless of the accuracy of the claim (and it was not credible), right-wing bloggers became effective ambassadors to mainstream media.

The study’s authors actually cite research that shows that repeating a myth in order to deny its credibility may have the opposite effect.

“Research has shown that restating a myth in order to negate it can actually produce familiarity and thereby help further propagate the misinformation.”

This has strong implications for social change organizations of all stripes—the public debate is often played out as a series of narratives that are alternately supported and refuted by proponents and opponents, respectively.

Two graphics show the networks of media that mentioned “marijuana” (figure 8 in the study) and “drug dealer” (figure 9) during this period (notice how prominent the right-wing Wagist bubble is in both graphics.) The large size of the Miami Herald bubble signals high frequency of news mentions of the word “marijuana” in the story; as does the similarly large sized Wall Street Journal bubble (“drug dealer” in the same context).

Figure 8: Network of interlinked media mentioning ‘marijuana’

Figure 8: Network of interlinked media mentioning ‘marijuana’ as taken from the authors’ study

Figure 9: Network of interlinked media mentioning ‘drug dealer’

Figure 9: Network of interlinked media mentioning ‘drug dealer’ as taken from the authors’ study

How opponents can inadvertently strengthen your messaging goals

What’s interesting is how left-wing blogs and organizations join the fray and, by refuting the right-wing claims, nonetheless continue to keep the negative framing in the limelight, as evidenced by the largish bubbles that represent ThinkProgress.org, for example. The author’s conclusions:

“This suggests a strategy for reframing a story—if an activist is able to gain mainstream coverage for [framing a message a certain way], opponents are likely to respond, [thus] perpetuating a debate that features the desired framing [of the activist].

Remember, these two graphs reflect the prominence of Trayvon Martin and the words “drug dealer” and “marijuana,” an association that his supporters deemed undesirable. All started by a right-leaning blogger, perpetuated by those who countered the claim, and widely covered (eventually by papers ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times).

Piggybacking to a related cause: Stand Your Ground Laws under attack

The authors describe how an organization with a different focus, The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a left-leaning organization, injected its concerns about the influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative lobbying organization that became an outspoken proponent of the “stand your ground laws” that were used in Zimmerman’s defense of the Trayvon Martin shooting) into the debate. The Center for Media and Democracy had launched a campaign against ALEC prior to the shooting but used the controversy to strengthen its campaign. And like-minded progressive organizations formed a cascading effect, as they piggybacked off the Center’s research to pressure corporations to withdraw ALEC funding. Eventually, even Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote an op-ed (March 25) about Trayvon and the Stand Your Ground Laws, and change.org followed suit with many petitions to dismantle these laws. According to the authors of the media mapping study, on April 17 ALEC terminated its controversial task force on those laws.

Correlation between digital and traditional media coverage and reader engagement: All news sources tend to cover issues even after reader interest wanes

The study’s findings show that all media sources, (traditional and digital) are roughly correlated (when one was covering the story, so were the others)—this extends to news articles, TV coverage, searches, petition signatures, and clicks to links (via bit.ly) on this coverage. The conversation on Twitter appeared to peter out after a while, and the authors speculate that this was either because campaigns had used Twitter early on or simply because social media may be quicker than other mediums to move away from one story to the next. Overall, however, the “tail” of news coverage went beyond actual reader engagement (sharing, clicking on links to articles, etc.) which the authors believe may indicate that readers simply lost interest even whilst the media continued coverage.

Conclusions:

1. Broadcast media still matters.

Broadcast media amplifies (spreads the story through coverage) and serves as a gatekeeper (what it chooses not to cover has a harder time getting out into the public debate, and how it frames what it does cover tends to stick). But activists who use other media channels and platforms (petitions, social media, blogging, leveraging like-minded organization and allies, personal networks) are now solidly influencing how the message is shaped and formed (framing).

2. Social change organizations can spin traditional media for their own purposes.

Even though broadcast media still serve as strong gatekeepers to what does/doesn’t get covered and how it is framed, smart organizations leverage existing coverage to inform their supporters, piggyback off the coverage to mobilize their allies, and spin it (reframing) to meet their own messaging goals. And, from a messaging perspective, it’s promising, as evidenced by how successfully many Trayvon Martin proponents were able to shift the media narrative (the outcome of the trial is another matter).

3. The blogosphere covers issues long after broadcast media coverage peaks.

Smart organizations know this, and court bloggers accordingly, understanding what motivates them to write and when. So understanding who is blogging (or has the potential to blog) about your issues and cultivating those relationships is key.

4. Contemporary news outlets today are increasingly more likely to get the maximum out their investment of time and journalists to cover a story.

News outlets will cover a story even after readers have disengaged. Don’t get too excited. This has not been covered in a flattering light (see McJournalism).

5. Social media can create related micro-stories from broader events.

These micro-stories then become news events in themselves and create a longer tail for the original story (the Million Hoodie March, for example).

6. Social media can side-step traditional media gatekeeping functions if you have good content.

Some social media platforms that are particularly well-suited to a specific type of content (YouTube or Facebook for video-sharing, for example) quite powerfully and effectively side-step traditional media’s gatekeeper role, and thus are demonstrably able to shape public opinion. Organizations that know how to create relevant content for these and other  platforms can get their message across in huge ways.

7. Social media is so much more than spreading the word.

Because it is so heavily reliant on personal interpretation (one person sharing his or her opinion about a news event, in addition to simply sharing news of the event itself), social media is a powerful force in shaping the message and framing—and the public perception—about an event.

8. Deviant discourse: Social media upends the traditional notion that mainstream media are, indeed, the gatekeepers for news content and opinion

This has its downfalls. In the past, gatekeeper news organizations simply wouldn’t cover extreme views that were a small minority of public debate. Today, if enough people talk about it, it does indeed become mainstream news (the authors point to the widespread coverage of Obama’s citizenship as a case in point). The authors explain this “deviant discourse,” as they put it, brilliantly, and it’s worth quoting here:

“Our work suggests a mechanism through which social media users introduce potentially deviant frames into the mainstream: they harness ideas to a high attention story already underway and attempt to direct the attention generated by the story towards their interpretations and views.”

9. Use finding #8 (above) for good, and not for evil, okay?

(My opinion; not the authors’.)

Hope you enjoyed this post. Mad props to the geniuses at the MIT Center for Civic Media for this incredibly data-rich study. Mindblowing stuff.

A little bit of visual awesomeness from Visual.ly

On a weekly basis (if I’m lucky) one of the things that I find myself most in need of is a common area to find real-life examples of the best practices that we all try to follow. But talk is cheap and a little bit of visual awesomeness goes a long way so…

When Visual.ly announced its launch of a new social media platform for data viz designers, I danced my happy dance (perhaps prematurely, time will tell).

visual.ly - new social media platform for data viz

Why? Well, I don’t know how many of you often find yourselves swimming upstream and in the dark when it comes to sweet-talking clients out of ideas that you know are, em, well, sometimes just a wee bit unusual, not realistic, not good practice, a few branches short of a tree etc., etc.. If you are, then you also know how, though these conversations can sometimes be rewarding, oftentimes they are not (all recipients of puzzled looks or polite silence followed by the inevitable request to “do it anyway” or “can’t you just…” raise your hands).

I’m hoping that this new platform will give us quick access to quality examples of information design–solutions that illustrate a specific direction or idea that we’re trying to pitch to our teams, stakeholders and clients. Often I find myself scrambling to create comps to better prove or show a point. Nothing wrong with that, but if there’s a place where I can follow knowledgeable designers and their work rather than wading through Google searches or sites that warehouse images, I’m all for it (though where would I be without my favorite beer graphic?).

The Visual.ly social media platform, coupled with the excellent blogs out there (ranging from good critiques on the visual.ly blog, to case studies and reality checks by chartsnthings, as well as the usual suspects like the Guardian and Flowing Data and many more) is a damn good thing, and I’m excited to see this take off.

If we use this tool wisely and well, does that mean no more animated 3D piecharts?

Bolivia 2.0? The role of data, technology and information in Bolivia in 2012

It is by now a cliché to to point out how developing countries most in need of what data journalism provides–a credible, fact-based approach that cuts through the noise of bias to help average citizens become informed participants in the problem-solving processes of improving social-political challenges–is not (quite) manifesting itself where it is most needed. Yeah, that’s a long sentence. But Bolivia is a case in point.

A search for data visualization in Bolivia yields mostly European NGOs posting myriad Tableau and GoogleMap visualizations about the usual statistics on health and economy–laudable efforts in their own right, but not a good representation of the state of information and data visualization in Bolivia proper.

To find what Bolivians are doing, you need lots of time and a high level of tolerance for dead links. But it’s out there. As a recent example, Bolivian@s Globales produced a modern, candid video on the state of Bolivia. It’s a solid blend of information and optimism, and shows us what today’s Bolivians are capable of producing in the digital space.

And–in a country where where the government can be reliably counted upon to discourage openness and transparency–multimedia, even the simple use of video, is critical. Fortunately, there is evidence that digital journalism is growing. The major papers went online years ago, but more importantly, there are now digital journalism sites and signs that Bolivian bloggers are growing, both in quality and in numbers.

Crowdsourcing, mapping and social media in Bolivian elections

Sadly, one of the most encouraging examples of data visualization and social media in Bolivia went dark, but the screenshots and documentation that remain are encouraging. In 2009, Voces Bolivianas and other Bolivians began using data visualization to monitor Bolivian elections (Elecciones 2.0 Bolivia). See how monitoring was crowdsourced through GoogleMaps:

Elecciones 2-0 Bolivia

Coupled with Twitter, a Facebook page and other social media, Elecciones 2.0 Bolivia was groundbreaking for Bolivians. Re-visto, an online investigative journalism site run by Deutche Welle, interviewed Mario Duran (a noted Bolivian blogger) on the groundswell of acceptance and use of social media and digital journalism in the 2009 elections (English translation here). And there was a New York Times write-up of how Bolivians were covering the elections referendum on Twitter.

Other Bolivian data visualization projects of note:

Bolivians’ access to reliable Internet:

Bolivia (as well as other developing nations and rural communities in the U.S.) faces another challenge–reliable internet speeds. A recent Bolivian infographic (in Spanish) describes the problem and the social media citizen lobbying effort (Mas y major internet en Bolivia–Better and more Internet in Bolivia) to address it.

I’ll be honest. As I was researching information for this post, I found myself frustrated with the fact that, after days of searching, I couldn’t easily point to a few examples of cutting edge data visualization pieces. There was a part of me that wanted to say to the world, “see, we’re doing it too, you just haven’t found us.” But I’m walking away from this experience with a much more sober understanding of the challenges that Bolivians face. I’m not a journalist. I no longer live in Bolivia. I don’t have to deal with civil unrest, strikes, sketchy Internet access and the uneasy history that Bolivian governments have bequeathed to journalists and citizens concerned with civil liberties and human rights.

The willingness of Bolivians to put in the sweat equity to learn, exploit and disseminate these technologies is self-evident and encouraging.

The next steps, as I see them? Helping Bolivian journalists continue to embrace data journalism, raising awareness of open source data platforms such as Tableau and Ushahidi, and empowering today’s technology-minded Bolivians to learn how to turn information into power through openness and transparency. I’d be most interested in hearing from you on how this is happening and look forward to writing more about it.