It’s Complicated: Why the Arts Need Responsible Data Journalism
Before the Internet, few outside of research or technical vocations had much concern with data. Now, as users and producers in an increasingly Internet-centric economy, we’re all swept up in the dataflood. All of this activity, individually and in the aggregate, contributes to the massive volume of data generated every day. Contextualizing all of this information and translating it for human comprehension is one of the key challenges of our time. Those who do this work — the so-called “data journalists” of the networked era — have a profound responsibility to help the rest of us understand not only our own experiences, but also those of our fellow human beings.
The creative sector faces unique challenges in this brave new world. We need data journalists with the insights and expertise to accurately tell our stories, but such reporting is far too rare. Case in point: a recent New York Times Magazine cover story called “The Creative Apocalypse that Wasn’t.” This article advances some of the most tired arguments about how creatives are faring in the emerging digital economy, even as it purports to use data to arrive at its conclusions.
Artists and cultural workers share many experiences with other producers and laborers. We have all had to deal with a protracted economic downturn and asymmetric recovery. Many of us grapple with technology driven shifts in local, national and international economies. We’ve adjusted our individual approaches in response to stresses new and old. We all desire opportunity and want to have a say in our future. But artists are also diverse and highly specialized. Just as it would be a mistake to conflate service sector workers with hedge fund managers, it’s unhelpful to lump all creatives together to support a reductive narrative about the benefits of technological progress.
An increase in data available for examination should, theoretically, assist analysts in understanding what’s happening in each of our disciplines. Yet time and again, we see misapplied, incomplete or poorly sourced data being used in articles and think-pieces that are out-of-sync with many artists’ everyday reality.
The Times piece (examined more closely here and here) is merely the most recent example of deeply flawed conclusions regarding the impact of technology on our sector. Some of this is simply the aftereffects of a decade-plus of breathless reporting on how the Internet would usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity and productivity. (In some ways, the latter has been borne out through new efficiencies, but the value generated from this productivity is hardly evenly distributed.) From the initial excitement about the “long tail” to more recent over-estimations of the “sharing economy,” digital proselytizing is hardly a new phenomenon. As artists and culture workers, we have certainly benefited from many of the innovations borne of networked technology — that’s why so many of us creatives have gone to bat time and again to preserve net neutrality. But when it comes to economic analysis, the big thinkers have some real blind spots.
These blind spots are perpetuated by a lack of quality data around arts and culture generally. This isn’t due to a lack of desire on our part; in fact many arts advocates spend considerable resources surveying our communities in order to better understand their experiences and serve our memberships and constituencies. But good, reliable research is expensive to conduct. As foundation funding for such initiatives decreases, and as corporations become more invested in agenda-driven research, there are fewer opportunities to conduct this important work. More researchers in the space would certainly help. But then again, there’s not really a lot for them to do due without quality data sets to investigate and compare. We’re trying to change this.
To be sure, responsible data journalism in the arts is difficult to effectuate, and even the best analysts will encounter obstacles. First off, there’s an incredible amount of variances in the practices, norms and laws that govern creative work across disciplines. These complexities may lead observers to overemphasize the anecdotal — which is precisely what data journalism was supposed to help overcome. Analysis is further frustrated by a lack of quantitative time-series data in the arts. But this should not be a permission slip to fall back on assumptions. Rather, it should be a call to do better. This is where data journalists could play an important role, if they so chose.
Unfortunately, the stories most often told are by writers who lack practical understanding of how the creative sector actually functions. For example, concert tour grosses reported by Pollstar tell us something about the robustness of the North American concert industry, but it tells us nothing about the cost side of touring, or any performer’s take home. International box office receipts from a Marvel Studios release isn’t indicative of the residuals available to an independent filmmaker or documentarian. A million-selling album doesn’t necessarily mean that the recording artist is getting royalty checks. The up-front costs of creative labor can’t be uniformly reduced or eliminated with an invocation of efficiency.
The interrelationship between creative disciplines and a global digital economy can be summed up by two words familiar to social network users: it’s complicated. To better reflect the reality of working artists, we need more detailed information about their revenue picture, and not just the big corporations that monetize artists’ work. And crucially, we need data analysts who understand that there is no uniform approach to creative enterprise.
Publishers, for their part, have a responsibility to pay close attention to what data journalists are peddling. Even in an era of ubiquitous information access, the public still holds institutions like the New York Times in high regard, partly due to a long history as credible news purveyors. Narratives that are promoted as consensus should immediately raise a red flag. While it is true that prevailing views are sometimes reinforced by an accurate interpretation of data, there are as many instances where subjective interpretation is put forward as authoritative. Given today’s click-driven publishing model, it is perhaps inevitable that stories that fit a pre-fab mold — like, say, an overly optimistic view of the future, or an overly pessimistic one — are favored over those that present a more nuanced view. This might be good for the cottage industry of digital prognosticators, but it’s not particularly helpful to everyday participants in our creative economy.
Reporting, good or bad, reinforces perception. These perceptions bleed into the policy arena — a place where cultural workers have historically had the least amount of input. It’s certainly the case that commercial interests from all sides are eager to diagnose problems, but solutions are often elusive due to the inability or unwillingness of policymakers to understand the full scope of who is really impacted. This in turn perpetuates and exacerbates inequalities experienced by constituents — creative workers as well as other members of the public. When only multinational entertainment conglomerates and large technology companies speak for artists, you can bet that any solutions will be incomplete or crafted to serve the interests of a small handful of commercial players.
The arts community is a do-it-yourself culture. We’re already investing in economic impact research, or at least as much as our limited budgets will allow. In order to generate the kinds of data that could really impact the debate, we require greater resources. Understand that we don’t conduct research for the sake of perpetuating our organizations or as some kind of box-checking exercise. We do it because we believe that our communities have something important to relate about the broader shifts that are happening in our economy: a trend to a freelance, income-patching activities where high productivity doesn’t necessarily translate to increased value for workers.
Creativity is a cornerstone of innovation and an accelerant of positive social change. Because art is so fundamental to human communication, understanding the experiences of artists is crucial to our civic and social well-being. We’re already doing our part to advance the conversation. We only ask those who observe and report on our sector will do theirs.
