“Big data” has arrived, but big insights have not. The challenge now is to solve new problems and gain new answers – without making the same old statistical mistakes on a grander scale than ever.
Use adjectives to make your meaning more precise and be cautious of those you find yourself using to make it more emphatic.
It’s not just what you print that makes you an authoritative and trusted source for news, but what you don’t print.
One of the fun things about journalism (to me) is the opportunity of find out more about why or how something happens. While Google has been performing this function well most of the time, I often enjoy reading a good, well-written and well-edited backgrounder on an issue that is currently in the news.
The BBC News’ “Who, What, Why” is one such series. After rebels seized the city of Timbuktu in Mali, this article “Who, What, Why: Why do we know Timbuktu?" served as a good backgrounder on how the place Timbuktu came to represent a place far, far away in the English language.
Then there was a story about a cat that survived a 19-floor fall in the US. The question became: “Who, What, Why: How do cats survive falls from great heights?”. Some people might say such a topic is frivolous, but I say, never stop asking questions!