Abstract
It has almost become a truism in recent years to claim that journalism is in crisis, exacerbated by the devaluation of facts in the post-truth era. Alessandro Martinisi and Jairo Lugo-Ocando argue in their book that this has led to an increased emphasis on the importance of the so-called quality journalism, which is all too often associated with the use of numbers and data. However, they find this problematic
not only because the process of datafication of journalism brings with it a long positivist tradition that is in itself problematic but also due to the fact that the aspirations to quality are so vaguely defined within journalistic practice. To be sure, the notion of ‘quality’ in the news remains not only elusive but also contentious. On the one hand, the notion of ‘quality news’ and ‘quality news providers’ has centred on the normative claims of journalism being a public service to society; something that, as we will argue, is questionable both factually and historically. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to suggest that statistics and data do not necessarily bring accessibility, reliability, validity or credibility to the news stories. (p. 4)
The authors argue that ‘it is impossible today to disassociate the discussion about quality and power in the news from the use of numbers and data’ (p. 3). The questions they attempt to answer in their book revolve around this relationship between quality and power in the news and the use of numbers and data. They ask:
What are the reasons and rationales behind incorporating numbers in the news stories? Are news stories really better – a term that in itself is problematic – because they present the audience particular numbers or data? Does the incorporation of statistics make news stories more comprehensive and accessible? . . . What do we understand by quality in the news? Is data really the future for journalism? (p. 3)
Martinisi and Lugo-Ocando argue that their research shows that the use of statistics by journalists has become like a ritual for ascertaining objectivity, which they explore through the use of five quality dimensions: Relevance, Accuracy, Timeliness, Interpretability and Accessibility. They draw upon a mixed-methods approach combining content analysis, close-reading rhetorical structure analysis, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and Q-test, and focusing on the crime and health news beats in the United Kingdom. The book is split into seven chapters, including the Introduction. Chapter 2 focuses on the importance of numbers as information. Chapter 3 deals with the debate about quality in journalism. Chapter 4 explores the use of statistics in journalistic practice. Chapter 5 looks at the normative importance of quality in journalism. Chapter 6 presents the results of the empirical analysis, and Chapter 7 concludes by discussing the ideology of statistics in the news. All in all, this is a very interesting and thought-provoking book for journalism scholars and students.