The shift from facts to data is subtle and makes perfect sense. You could that say data are facts, with the difference that they can be computed, analyzed, and made use of in a more abstract way, especially by a computer.

There is nothing new about pointing out the importance of public data being made available. Sir Tim Berners-Lee has discussed at length the importance of governments and institutions putting their data online, making it accessible and useful. His TED talk and interviews with ReadWriteWeb and Talis (disclosure: I am a blogger at Talis) all explain his belief that by publishing linked data we can begin to solve many of the problems the world faces. Innovations in medicine, science, and development could all be achieved if only currently hidden data were made available. Data-driven journalism could be the first step in realizing this dream. The best stories would then come from innovators who read about trends reported in news media and are then able to draw new conclusions and solve bigger problems. In his recent discussion with BBC, Berners-Lee said that the next step is to go for low-hanging fruit by just getting the data out there.

Thus far, this has made a lot of sense to me, and I have been tracking the publication of linked data and increasing access to public knowledge as emerging trends over at Talis. But my perspective has shifted a bit in the past few weeks.

First, there was data.gov and President Obama's call for more access to government data. A sitting head of state (and one of some significance) was clearly calling for public access to government data: this was news! But the idea has been discussed, praised, and debated for a while since then and may have lost some of its luster.

Then about a month ago, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown made it part of his digital strategy to prioritize the publication of government information. He asked Sir Tim personally "to help us drive the opening up of access to Government data in the web over the coming months" and appointed Berners-Lee an official governmental adviser. By now, neither of these stories is news and comparisons between the initiatives have been made.

The Guardian newspaper recently launched its own Data Blog, with the intention of letting readers access, mash up, and reuse much of its information in the form of data, which could in turn drive stories.

What is perhaps not as explicitly recognized is the voracious appetite for data that has been apparent for months. It is less about turning good ideas into stories and more about seeing how data informs our understanding of events happening right now. Each new initiative is another piece of low-hanging fruit picked.

Access to data is important: it drives innovation and even social change. Governments that publish their data have to become more transparent. Humanitarian organizations that make their findings known could spark bigger projects and source innovative solutions from their communities. Scientific findings and raw information could be used to solve bigger problems than the result of a single experiment or trial could ever manage. Even the simple comparison of two or more facts can lead to new insight, and all of these things happen only when the walls around an institution become porous.

2009 could become known as the year of data, the year of open access, or the year of the semantic Web (see links above for how this relates), and it may also be the first year when it becomes news that data wasn't published in a story when it should have been. That a government body isn't being transparent or is blocking access by publishing its findings in PDF or other non-linking formats would make a very interesting story indeed. We can expect to see more and more organizations and public bodies remove their own barriers through initiatives and legislation. Examples have been set, and seeing excuses die along with barriers is not far-fetched.

Do you know of other data-driven stories? We'd love to hear about any insights that were made through publicly accessible data or where this data might come from next.

Guest author: Zach Beauvais is a Platform Evangelist for Talis and editor of Nodalities Magazine.

Tip RWW <-- Just grab that link and give it a click any time you're on a page you want to share with us. An email window will open (just using a mailto: link) pre-populated with the link and page title, addressed to us. Hit send, maybe add a note if you like. Breaking news, good background information, critiques of the things we've written - whatever you like. We'll give you credit for anything we use in a post, unless you ask us not to. Consider yourself part of the RWW team.

We've got a healthy staff of about 10 writers and researchers (and a small army of robots, it's true), but why limit story discovery to our own staff? If you'd like to help, your help will be much appreciated.

What do you think of this idea? We'd love to hear any feedback you've got - we don't know why we didn't think of it earlier.

Thanks to Jay Meattle of Shareaholic for providing the javascript to make this elegant!

Is this another sign that a fact-based understanding of the world is being eclipsed by an amalgamation of aggregated collaborative thinking? Or is it the ascent of the best the internet has to offer - crowdsourced news gathering and fact checking as an essential part of the story? We argue it's the later, but it's easy to imagine many people seeing Wikipedia on a news page and feeling pretty cynical about it.

People used to say you couldn't trust anything written on Wikipedia, but they used to say that about the whole internet. While professional news organizations have professional editors and fact checkers, Wikipedia has far more eyes to mobilize in fact checking.

Update: Someone from another wiki news company forwarded us a rejection email from the Google News team. That email included the words: "We can't include sites that don't have a formal editorial-review process for submitted content." Apparently things have changed! Does this mean the doors are open for other less-traditional news sites? Maybe, maybe not - Wikipedia is thought of as quite exceptional. It's a notable policy change, none the less.

Wikipedia is still wrong sometimes, sometimes hot topic pages have incorrect information on them for minutes at a time. The same can be said for traditional media websites, however, and both types of sites have an ultimate interest in correcting inaccuracies as quickly as possible. Whatever information appears on Wikipedia can be viewed in its page-historical context and editing authors can have their personal editing histories examined. Those things can't be done as easily on newspaper websites.

Ultimately it's not about competition between forms of news sites, of course. Wikipedia entries are filled with facts gleaned from professional reporters on other sites. Wikipedia also offers greater background and more links that newspaper pages choose to include in news coverage.

In the early days days of the 20th century, news beat reporters from competing outlets would often share all the information they gathered with each other before writing up coverage and calling it in to their respective newspapers. (They competed on voice, insight and perspective for differentiation.) Perhaps Wikipedia will someday supplement other news coverage in this kind of way, acting as a public clearinghouse for readers interested in an aggregation of all the facts reported, along with more extensive historical context. That sounds like a pretty exciting idea to us. Google News already fills this role itself to some degree, but the web is a many-textured source of information and there are lots of ways that different organizations can contribute to our understanding of current events.

These days, everywhere you look it seems that some newspaper is closing its doors, stopping its presses, or maybe just going online-only. This sea of change is being heralded by some as the "death of journalism," a transformation that has been brought about thanks to the web. But is the web really killing journalism? Or, is it allowing an entirely new type of journalism to emerge?

At last week's Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco, we had an opportunity to sit down with David and ask him about the project, what's been happening with it, and where he sees it going. 

The "Death of Journalism?" Not so fast. We would say that the internet is leading us to the future instead.

About Spot.us

Spot.us is a non-profit startup which distributes the cost of hiring a journalist across a community of people. Based in the San Francisco Bay area, Spot.us has already funded stories where journalists have investigated things like the local police department, poverty issues, and city budgetary issues.

After a story is funded and the final copy is turned in, Spot.us will try to sell the first publishing rights. If that happens, then any money they make goes back to the original donors so they can reinvest in another story. If Spot.us is not able to sell the first publishing rights, they will then release the story under Creative Commons so anyone can publish it.

Spot.us is currently funded through a grant, but they also ask the community to donate an additional $2 when funding a particular story. This money goes to the organization itself and will hopefully allow it to expand to other cities. But, if you don't want to wait for Spot.us to come to your town, you can start your own version instead. The Spot.us code is open source, so you could launch a site like this for your own community.

In the end, what David Cohn hopes to prove is that, indeed, "journalism will survive the death of its institutions." With Spot.us, he shows us that there is another way to keep the industry alive, even after the papers fail.

The program launched over the weekend through via this lighthearted post over on TypePad.com which reminds you that "Tumblr...will not pay your bills." According to the company, they've already seen hundreds of journalists signing up to participate.

As detailed in the TypePad blog post, the bailout program includes the following, a dollar value of at least $150 per year (the price of the TypePad service alone), if not more :

A free TypePad Pro blog account, the same service that powers many big-name media blogs. It includes professional support so Six Apart will answer any questions you have.

The blog is enrolled in the Six Apart Media advertising program. These are display ads that pay a more than Google text ads, and bloggers get to keep the revenue.

Six Apart will promote the new site on Blogs.com, a directory of the best in blogs. Blogs.com will be a way for all of the bloggers peers in the Journalist Bailout Program to cross-promote and share traffic for their independent sites.

Lots more. Six Apart can also introduce you to their VIP program to help drive traffic to the site, help connect blogs to LinkedIn profiles, make it easy to manage your comments from an iPhone, and even show you how to automatically promote posts to your Facebook friends

There are no rules on how the blog must be used. Journalists can use the blog showcase their best work, launch something new, or hang onto the site, you know, "just in case."

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

We're in the midst of a great upheaval. The internet is impacting the business models of so many established ventures. Newspapers and magazines aren't the only industries affected by any means. The internet has left nothing untouched, whether music, video, news, sports, communication, marketing, advertsing and more, those wishing to stave off its force of change are simply trying to outswim a tidal wave.

What's better for those being impacted is to be prepared and thinking ahead for the future - what is Plan B? As we mentioned earlier this week, not everyone sees the death of the journalism ahead - media mogul Rupert Murdoch, for example, sees opportunity.

And if you think successful journalism can only come on the platform of old media, you're wrong. Look around. So many journalists are now getting into blogging, but one of our newest favs that proves the potential success of the model is TechFlash, home to John Cook and Todd Bishop, both of whom left their respected papers and struck out on their own to deliver quality tech news in readable format without all the bias, backstabbing, and petty quarrels the tech "blogosphere" seems to get itself involved in from time to time.

Journalists may also want to keep in mind Arianna Huffington's recent, but vague, promise to begin funding investigative journalism through her incredibly successful The Huffington Post site, one of the most recognizable and read blogs out there.

So journalists, get your platforms ready...there's no better time than now and no better price than free.

Note: Six Apart's Movable Type weblogging platform is what powers our blog here at ReadWriteWeb.

Some are saying Morson took reporting to an all-time low and found his technique to be repulsive. The U.K. newspaper Guardian has stated that Morson is a prime example of its "'Inappropriate Use of Technology' chart." Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism professor Samuel Freedman told ABCnews.com that,

"I think that reporters are often in the uncomfortable position of reporting from settings where people are in great grief. These situations call for the greatest understanding and discretion on the part of the reporter.To be putting real-time notes out there as opposed to waiting until the ceremony is over; there's an element of pillaging a private moment of grief that I'm uncomfortable with."

Freedman also equates the event to "a TV journalist doing a stand-up in the middle of a funeral." Unfortunately, most are finding the technique Morson used to be downright unethical and disrespectful to the the Kudlis family. But was it?

Over Reacting

Rabbi David J. Zucker who officiated service disagrees with those in outrage over the event.

"I don't see anything on this [Web site] -- that Berny did -- is in anyway offensive," he said, adding that the coverage was professional and compassionate. "The way I see it is that it's somebody sharing to a wider community [that was] interested and felt connected to this sad event."

To some extent it can be said that there was nothing wrong with Morson's use of Twitter to keep interested sympathizers informed. The updates are still available on the Twitter account RMN_Berny. Upon viewing the updates, you notice that there's absolutely nothing humiliating or disrespectful about what Morson sent to the Twitter account. The updates are short, simple, and do not divulge any unnecessary information about the funeral. The updates served more as service guides than anything else.

Ethics or Techniques?

If it's Morson's ethics that are in question, I see nothing wrong with the way he reported the event. However, a funeral that is twittered may be a little too much for others to stomach. If it is a question of respect, the parents of Marten haven't said anything about Morson's "tweets". After all, it was their choice to allow him to report the funeral service. What difference does it really make if he chooses to report via Twitter?

This incident also brings up a very touchy topic: privacy. Morson has only helped to blur the line of what's meant to be public and what's meant to be private when it comes to the use of technology. Are we making too much information readily accessible online? Maybe so. However, the choice is always ours to make.

That makes sense given that analysts have predicted that local ad spending will jump 48% this year to $12.6 billion. The majority of those ads will be search advertising, but clearly, local information is hot with consumers. We've written about the rise of hyperlocal information on ReadWriteWeb before -- Huffington and company are seeking to take advantage of this trend. They want to turn the Huffington Post into a national, virtual newspaper group -- think Gannett or McClatchy but completely online.

And that makes sense, too. A comScore study that we reported on in March revealed that 38% of those between the ages of 18 and 24 are unlikely to read a physical newspaper during a typical week, but non-news readers are still voracious consumers of news. They just get their news online -- and not just from traditional newspaper sites.

"Non-newspaper readers are a particularly important segment to reach because they are heavier than average news consumers - they just prefer to consume it in a digital format," said comScore executive vice president Jack Flanagan. "That they are receptive to print, TV, and Internet news brands indicates a broad opportunity online, but the brands that will ultimately win over these key news consumers are the ones that successfully integrate cutting edge digital content with high quality journalism." Clearly, that is a message that HuffPo gets -- their tag line is "The Internet Newspaper: News Blogs Video Community," and Arianna Huffington said last night that much of their venture funding will go toward building out a team of reporters. Last year they hired BBC reporter Elinor Shields to become the sites managing editor.

However, the Huffington Post is an edited aggregator -- a team of editors oversees the site and specifically decides what links get space on the sites, writes headlines by hand, selects images, etc. Last year I wrote for a competitor to the Huffington Post in the political news blogosphere, and from first hand experience I can tell you that it is hard work to gather and post news links and manage original and wire content. It will be interesting to see if HuffPo will be able to scale their local strategy to compete with automated local news aggregators like Outsite.in and YourStreet (our coverage).

Image credit: jdlasica

Twitter did indeed have news of the China earthquake before the press -- and that's not the first time it has beaten the press to a major story. It did the same for the UK earthquake earlier this year, or the other China earthquake in March, and the Mexico quake last year. But Twitter doesn't beat the press or the USGS to specific information about the size, the scale, the death toll, the clean up efforts. It can't do in depth reporting that adds a human face to news events.

Twitter reporting looks like this: "I felt an earthquake" -- "WOW: was that an earthquake??" -- "earthquake!!!!!!" -- "earthquake in Beijing so crazy!" etc.

Those tweets came in moments after the earthquake happened -- or perhaps in some cases while it was still happening. But beyond confirming that there was something going on in China, they didn't tell us much.

The real problem with saying things like "Twitter outshined the mainstream new" is that it implies that the two are in competition. They're not. Twitter is a tool. We've talked about it as a platform for information dissemination and we've talked about ways that journalists can use it. And that's really the rub: journalists can use Twitter, they shouldn't feel threatened by it, as it would seem the AFP reporter does.

Twitter is great because it is distributed -- it puts eyes and ears on the ground everywhere. Everyone is a potential witness to breaking news and Twitter gives people a platform to discuss what they see. The mainstream press should embrace Twitter and use it to source and enhance their news coverage; they should not worry about being outshined by it. Twitter will never outshine the mainstream press as long as reporters continue to do what they do best -- get on the ground, talk to the right people, find out what's really going on, and deliver what they find with as much depth as possible. Twitter will never be able to do that, but it can certainly play a major role in helping reporters get it done.