But that’s not true in every case – or indeed most cases. The reason the three Wikileaks releases (Afghanistan, Iraq and the cables) have been so compelling is actually the combination of traditional journalistic skills allied with datajournalism. Putting Declan Walsh together with the results that we can get from the raw info is a fantastic combination and I think makes our content deeper and more compelling.

My point is more that this isn’t rocket science – it’s just a tool to an end. 15 years ago, many journalists didn’t have the internet on their office machines. Now can you imagine a single reporter who doesn’t browse every day? Using a spreadsheet will become like that for reporters – just part of the job.

I also think that adding visualisations to stories makes them more likely to be read. I think the statistics bear this out – the Datablog posts we add graphics and interactive features to attract readers to stay on the pages for a lot longer than those without.

‘Raw data’ is not often in charts; it’s figures. From what I’ve seen it’s standard practice to illustrate something in graphs, pie chart or whatever.

Yet Visualization in itself is a compromise from the ‘raw data’ ideal. Not just aesthetically either. Given the amount of time a pie chart takes to intepret versus numbers columns it won’t necessarily add up to quality. The same old problem of slant and presentation would remain despite the veneer of honesty data by itself might appear to have. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Another thing is interest – lots of people in the service economy get stats galore in offices. These tend to have a far narrower focus than the smorgasbord of stuff journalism encompasses. Yet I somehow can’t see people picking up a paper to see a title followed by spreadsheet and graphs.

Finest journalism I’ve read tells a story. It’s compelling, and the best, most world-changing stuff holds its own for longer as a result. Kim Philby, Watergate and in particular Thalidomide. The intrigue as expressed in the writing back then was what got people reading – were you to have a paper with ‘Government Thalidomide data proves shocking’ on it and just charts/numbers beneath would it not have resonated less for the reader?

It’s different than melding entertainment with news, as that’s a recipe for disaster which can be abundantly observed. But the extreme of pure data does take the palatable and emotional out of news, which I believe is needed given some of what’s covered. Even televised news I watch – I remember imagery and salient speech far better than a graph with percentiles or line gradients about the economy or whatever. Might just be my nutcase self, but I do believe others are the same.

Going to extremes tends not to turn out favourable with any appreciable frequency. Not to mention diverse markets who consume news. The FT reading financier is fewer in number than those who follow sports commentary or showbusiness. Outright telling people what to think or overtly entertaining with news outside of the comedic was bad for journalism, but so too is presenting bland data on its own with most subject.

Back in the old days in Liverpool the Echo was a broadsheet. It remarketed itself in tabloid form with the advent of literacy as a preserve of all classes. This proved wise – whilst circulations plummet now with that paper to some extent treating readers with patronizing assertions regards (eg) intuition I can’t see how this hypothesis translates to readers.

Just isn’t something I find people would seek out to spontaniously sound off about. How on Earth can people change so starkly and fast from the status quo?

Would be good if Simon could pop along to address the above.

Pete, editor at Dirty Garnet.