Most people would agree that the interpretation and presentation of data is crucial to the future of journalism online and off. And among the world’s biggest generators of data are democracies.
So how should a democratic government make its data available to journalists? And in what form?
Should it take the opportunity to bypass the media and provide data direct on the day of a public announcement, for whosoever sees fit to sort and parse?
Or should there be privileged access under embargo, to organizations and individuals who can help interpret this data for the wider public? In the vernacular – journalists.
In the UK, government data has already been successfully made available through early co-operation with the media. Raw data on schools was released to specialist journalists a week in advance of media announcements.
They could produce detailed online tables, or special supplements, for their various outlets.
The privileged access, and the time allowed, resulted in better information for the public, that was presented in a number of different ways and was widely disseminated.
Open government
It was just the kind of thing that then Cabinet Office minister and open government evangelist Tom Watson MP might have had in mind when he launched his information initiative Show Us A Better Way, to solicit ideas for data mashups to make government data more accessible to the public.
Of course, governments, despite attempting to portray themselves as coherent and omniscient institutions, tend not to be quite so joined up, or all-knowing.
So whilst, Tom was trying to prise open the door for data, worming its way through the legislative process was an order which would have the effect of limiting access to statistics across government: The Pre-release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008.
It came into force in December 2008.
The order had gone through all the bureaucratic “consultation” processes. A year earlier, Britain’s Finance Ministry (HM Treasury), who had initiated the measure, released a document with the potential to transform communication between government and citizenry by popping it discretely onto their website in the form of a pdf: Limiting pre-release access to statistics: a consultation document.
The clue to their intentions is the word “limiting.” As their website said: “the Government is proposing to tighten the rules and principles under which access to official statistics in their final form can be granted ahead of their publication.”
The civil servants were confident (the emphasis is theirs) that:
The proposals in this consultation document have an impact only on those giving pre-release access to statistics and those receiving it. In virtually all cases these people will be working in, or for, the public sector (and are largely in central government). As such there is expected to be no impact on the business or third sectors.
So the consultation was drawn to the attention only of who had previously responded to another statistical consultation – “stakeholders.” Not a journalist or media organization among them.
More consultation?
In a parallel consultation by the UK Statistics Authority [pdf] on the release of statistics, the only mention of journalists came in an appeal for more media training for statisticians, and in this submission from the Local Government Association (LGA):
We support the stricter proposals on the use of the embargo system for journalists. Local councils sometimes
have a keen policy interest in statistical releases (and indeed contribute data towards their production). It can
be, at the least, frustrating that journalists are able to form their own interpretation of the statistics in a release
before anybody in local government has seen it.
Elsewhere on its website the LGA notes that it “is involved in a range of programmes aimed at increasing local government accountability and tackling corruption.”
The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) published its new code of practice [pdf] in January 2009. They too reveal a desire to ensure that everyone gets equal access to data:
Statistical reports should be released into the public domain in an orderly manner that promotes public confidence and gives equal access to all, subject to relevant legislation.
The media is left out of the equation. The UKSA code hardly dispels the stereotype of civil service media paranoia:
Ensure that no indication of the substance of a statistical report is made public, or given to the media or any other party not recorded as eligible for access before publication. Report to the National Statistician immediately any accidental or wrongful release, and investigate the circumstances.
The impact of the order on the appearance of school league tables came to light in January 2009. The BBC‘s Gary Eason told the story. Schools Secretary Ed Balls was sympathetic, but…
So government departments reap the “unintended consequences” of initiatives begun with other agendas. Letters drafted by junior bureaucrats and sent on behalf of their bosses shuttle between agencies and ministries. Consultations appear and disappear like smoke. Parliament rubber-stamps legislation without being made aware of its consequences or contents. And civil servants use public access to prevent effective dissemination throught the media. No need for conspiracy theories in this story.
What to do?
As more data becomes available through government we need to find ways of dealing with it. One way is to divorce it from public announcements and dump it online. Another is to grant privileges and obligations to people who have the time and resources to interpret, publicise and disseminate it. They’re called the media.
Perhaps a select committee might turn its attention to the matter? Or perhaps another consultation, and another review? Or – God forbid – it might be left to the discretion of the people releasing such data, with a simple, independent appeals process.