Ranjona Banerji: Lies, Damned Lies and Data Journalism

By Ranjona Banerji

Data journalism is the big thing in this digital age, they tell me. Basically, this means interpreting numbers to present a picture to the reading or viewing public. Alternatively, it is about revealing what is hidden in the crevices between “lies, damned lies and statistics”. You might argue, as I did to myself when I started writing this, that “data journalism” is not therefore new. It has existed long before it got a suitably trendy name. I use the word trendy advisedly and slightly mockingly because in this “digital age” you have to sound both trendy and important. I explain what I mean because in this “digital age” you are also regularly in touch with some of humanity’s most dense specimens.

There, now that I’ve insulted enough people, let’s get on with it.

How did data journalism or attempts at data journalism present the recent Assembly election results (Assam, Bengal, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu)?

“On the face of it data journalism” is simple: The Congress lost Assam to the BJP and Kerala to the Left; Mamata Banerji and J Jayalalithaa retained Bengal and Tamil Nadu respectively and the Congress got Puducherry.

The takeout from this: The BJP is on the rise, having also won three seats in Bengal and one in Kerala, not their normal hunting ground. The Congress’s decline continues since it has lost two states. The Congress-Left alliance did not work in Bengal although the Congress did better than the Left. However, the Left far overtook Congress in Kerala. No one seemed to be bothered by what happened in Puducherry.

And then there’s “behind the scenes data journalism”. This tells you that the Left contested 452 seats, won 124 and therefore had a success rate of 27.4 per cent. The Congress contested 363, won 115 and had a success rate 31.6 per cent and the BJP contested 696 seats, won 64 and had a success rate of 9.1 per cent. Data will also show you that the BJP’s vote share has come down compared to the general elections of 2012. Further, 450 BJP candidates lost their deposits in these assembly elections.

You can also compare the BJP’s strike rate in 1984 and now and conclude that it has improved dramatically since then. You can also compare Congress in 1947 to now and conclude an even more dramatic fall.

Therefore, these numbers can mean anything you want them too. And that is why “data” is not enough – although it is vital – and some real journalism is required for perspective and interpretation. One of the fallouts of social media is that every other person you come across is an expert on journalism without having read a newspaper let alone spent 10 minutes in a newsroom. To them, being a journalist means being a TV anchor or a columnist.

I would put forward the reporter as the star journalist in this context. Reporters with their noses twitching, ears tingling and their feet stomping on the ground are invaluable. They can present an accurate picture on how people think, feel, act and this helps in interpreting data. The reason why opinion polls – especially when it comes to voting in India – can go wrong is that people lie. But the rigour in the practice of journalism and the advantage of a vigorous and experienced newsroom means that you have to root out the lie and corroborate the facts.

I should not however have to tell any journalist all this. Journalism is not economics where you can claim all is well with the economy because the Wholesale Price Index has come down even though the price of everyday pulses has gone through the roof and there is drought everywhere.

And at the end of the day, the BJP won more in real and perception terms than the Congress. And Mamata Banerjee and J Jayalalithaa won more than the BJP most emphatically and dramatically. Data journalism or otherwise.