Reviewing the Relationship Between Democracy and Data Journalism Practices in Turkey
Özlem ErkmenLarge data stacks that emerged with digitalisation, which could not be processed in a reasonable time with existing software or human resources, have the potential to develop democracy by transforming people’s approach to world affairs. However, there is a need for data journalists as “digital watchdogs” (Felle, 2015; 2016) that will make sense of the data and reveal the stories hidden in it for public good. The discussion of big data in the context of journalism started with the Wikileaks in 2010. Data journalism has come to the fore as a new practice covering the stages of cleaning, editing, visualising, processing and contextualising data. Investigative data journalism, which seeks to “find what is hidden in the shadows” based on informal/confidential data, and to find the relationships in it, is emphasised as an important tool of democracy. The study discusses this function of data journalism in Turkish context. In-depth interviews with data journalists have been made, along with the examination of content and technical characteristics of the projects applied from Turkey to the Global Editors Network’s Data Journalism Awards. The findings show that data journalism is mostly practised by small-scale and alternative newsrooms, with a human rights-based perspective. However, time shortage and the pressure of preparing publishable stories, prevent journalists from practising accountability journalism. Other obstacles to data journalism to fulfil its democratising potential are; media institutions do not invest in data journalism, accessing reliable data is difficult, professional collaboration is limited, and crowdsourcing for funding and/or news making is not applicable.
Türkiye Örnekleminde Veri Gazeteciliği Uygulamaları ve Demokrasi İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme
Özlem ErkmenDijitalleşmeyle birlikte ortaya çıkan, mevcut yazılımlar veya insan kaynağıyla makul sürelerde işlenemeyen büyük veri yığınları, insanların dünya meselelerine yaklaşımını dönüştürerek demokrasiyi geliştirme potansiyelini barındırmaktadır. Ancak bunun için, veriyi anlamlandıracak, içinde saklanan hikâyeleri kamu yararına ortaya çıkaracak “dijital bekçi köpekleri” (Felle, 2015; 2016) olarak veri gazetecilerine ihtiyaç vardır. Büyük verinin gazetecilik bağlamında tartışılması 2010’daki Wikileaks sızıntısıyla başlamıştır. Veriyi temizleme, düzenleme, görselleştirme, işleme ve ilişkilendirme aşamalarını kapsayan yeni bir pratik olarak veri gazeteciliği öne çıkmıştır. Özellikle gayrı resmi/gizli verilerden hareketle ‘gölgelerde saklı olanı’ arayan, veriyi sorgulayıp içindeki ilişkileri bulmayı içeren araştırmacı veri gazeteciliği, demokrasinin önemli bir aracı olarak vurgulanmaktadır. Araştırma, veri gazeteciliğinin bu işlevini Türkiye örneklemindeki uygulama bağlamında tartışmaktadır. Betimsel araştırma yöntemi ile yapılan çalışmada derinlemesine görüşme ve içerik analizi teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, veri projesi üretimine dâhil olmuş gazetecilerle derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmış, ayrıca Global Editors Network tarafından düzenlenen veri gazeteciliği ödüllerine Türkiye’den başvuran projelerin içerik ve teknik özellikleri incelenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, veri gazeteciliğinin çoğunlukla küçük ölçekli ve alternatif haber merkezleri tarafından, daha çok hak odaklı perspektifle yapılan bir pratik olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak yayınlanabilir konulara yönelme baskısı ve zamansızlık, yapılanı ‘hesap soran’ bir gazetecilik olmaktan uzaklaştırmaktadır. Türkiye örnekleminde veri gazeteciliğinin demokratikleştirici potansiyelini gerçekleştirmesinin önündeki diğer engeller olarak, medyanın henüz veri gazeteciliğine yatırım yapmaması, güvenilir veriye erişilememesi, mesleki işbirliğinin kısıtlılığı, yurttaş katılımlı alternatif fonlama ve haber üretme mekanizmalarının gerçekleştirilememesi sayılabilir.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, developments in information and communication technologies have radically transformed and digitised our daily lives. Every individual in the digital ecosystem, continually participates in data production by leaving digital traces. These data stacks, which could not be processed in a reasonable time with existing software or hu-man resources, are called big data. Those who are pro-big data, emphasise its potential to im-prove our understanding and perception of world affairs. However, there is a need for data journalists to be “digital watchdogs” (Felle, 2015; 2016) that will make sense of the data and reveal the stories hidden in them for the public good.
The discussion of big data in the context of journalism started with the Wikileaks in 2010. Data journalism has come to the fore as a new practice covering the stages of cleaning, edit-ing, visualising, processing and contextualising data. Investigative data journalism (Mair, & Keeble, 2013), which seeks to “find what is hidden in the shadows” based on infor-mal/confidential data, and to find the relationships in it, is emphasised as an important tool of democracy. Both professionals and academics assume that; the media, which has been grad-ually losing blood under the influence of neoliberal, conservative and authoritarian govern-ments, could regain the fourth power function with the aid of investigative data journalism.
Accordingly, case studies on how this practice is implemented in different countries are fre-quently conducted. Although the pioneering studies focus on the United States and European countries, the practice in the global south with different media systems has been questioned recently (Mutsvairo, 2019; Palomo, Teruel, & Blanco-Castilla, 2019).
Academic interest in data journalism in Turkey started in the second half of the 2010s, con-currently with early examples of data journalism pieces. However, the number of journalists and data stories produced, as well as the number of academic studies on the subject are quite limited. Since data journalism is at an early stage, academic works are rather descriptive stud-ies that relate data journalism to the transformation of journalism in the context of digitisation. On the other hand, a small number of MA and PhD thesis on the subject seek to interrogate the practice in Turkey with media professionals (Bayraktar, 2018; Furuncu, 2019; Oran, 2018). Those studies conclude that the practice of data journalism is weak in Turkey, and at-tribute this mainly to the lack of interest shown by media outlets in data journalism practice and training, and to the difficulties of accessing open data.
The study discusses the potential of data journalism to strengthen democracy and journal-istic autonomy in a Turkish context. In-depth interviews with data journalists were made, along with the examination of content and technical characteristics of the projects applied from Turkey to the Global Editors Network’s Data Journalism Awards (DJA). The interviewees were determined using snowball sampling. DJA applicants and journalists who participated in training organised by the Dokuz8 Haber citizen journalism platform were first contacted. The interviewees were then asked to propose people who they knew were reporting on data. In this way, interviews were conducted with eight people involved in data projects. Half of the interviewees were print and online media employees; the other half were independent or freelancers. The findings show that data journalism is mostly practiced by small-scale and alternative news-rooms, with a human rights-based perspective. However, time shortage and the pressure of preparing publishable stories, prevent journalists from practising accountability journalism. Other obstacles to data journalism to fulfil its democratising potential can be summarised in three categories:
Firstly, there are structural problems related to ownership and power relations. The mainstream media is not yet aware of data journalism or ignores data due to their editorial policies; and alternative media in its turn, struggles with legal issues and censorship. In addition, the monopolisation of data and the problems stemming from the Turkish Statistical Institute’s methodology make access to reliable data difficult. Secondly, there are problems related to the working conditions of journalists. Due to economic and editorial requirements, media organisations do not employ full-time data staff, and they are also uninterested in training existing staff. Furthermore, the interviewees complain about time pressure and a lack of professional collaboration. Finally, problems related to social structure and education level can be mentioned. Crowdsourcing/crowdfunding are not applicable because data journalism lacks the broad and dedicated audience it needs to realise it. It seems that the audience is a very limited digital literate elite.
Research findings show that, even though data journalists feel responsible for informing cit-izens on the stories that the data contains, they are far from being digital watchdogs. At the same time, alternative funding and news making mechanisms with citizen participation that will reinforce journalistic autonomy have not been implemented yet. At this point, data journalism cannot fulfil its function of strengthening democracy and encouraging democratic processes. The conditions highlighted by the interviewees do not indicate a positive development in these areas in the short term.
