Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
I’m planning on doing this perhaps bi-weekly: a roundup of stories got through the Freedom of Information Act that I particularly like (or, hopefully rarer, hate) and stories affecting journalists using the Act:
Just because it’s public…: Journalists have no right to know who’s been given an Asbo. Just because an Asbo is granted in public court, and councils regularly name Asbo recipients for PR purposes is no reason to disclose, according to the Information Tribunal. David Leigh, the journalist who made the original request, condemned the decision as a “victory for secret justice”. Full story here. Full disclosure: the author of this piece is one James Ball. I like the cut of his jib.
Topping the taser league Police in certain areas of the North are five times more likely to fire a taser than the national average, reveals FOI research from Newcastle’s Sunday Sun. The Sun sent FoI requests to all 51 UK police forces to assemble a league table of taser use. More here.
Blogging his rejection. Nope, not another emo teen blog, but Manchester Evening News reporter David Ottewell using his blog to share Greater Manchester Transport Executive’s decision to refuse his FoI request. Ottewell asked for a bid made by the region, and has been refused under an unusual exemption - more here. It’s great to see journalist’s blogs being used to share the mechanics behind a story - it’s exactly the sort of information sharing blogging opens up.
Conflict of interest The Telegraph is blasting Tate trustees after they discovered that 73 works on display in the gallery are owned by trustees - and some have benefited financially. Full story here.
Like the feature? Think it needs an “and finally”, myself. Will try to include one next time.
Gosh, the folks over at the Telegraph are daring: using “information technology experts” they’ve found over “20 key pieces of information” about Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, for only 35p.
The article mentions warnings about “too much information” being posted to social networking sites, and criminals allegedly selling bank details online.
So, what have our intrepid Telegraph experts been getting involved in? Are they irrevocably steeped in criminality? Are they heck.
My hunch is that the main source for their info is that hotbed of vice, 192.com. In addition to the usual directory enquiry services, they offer searches of the electoral rolls, register of birth marriages and deaths, and some basic director info (think Companies House-lite)
What’s the evidence? I have none but the price paid. 35p (plus VAT) is the price for a “credit” on the site. With what you can get for free elsewhere, some regular directory enquiry searches, and sparing use of the paid for facilities, you could get “20 key pieces” of information on ANYONE.
That may well worry you – as, I’m sure, would the knowledge that anyone can order a copy of your birth or marriage certificate, wholly legally. They can also look up details of your mortgage and house price, company directorships, and with some work, shareholdings. Makes you wonder why you shred your data so carefully, really, doesn’t it?
So yes, less scaremongering over all this ID theft malarkey. It’s not so much that people wouldn’t go through your bins to steal, if necessary. It’s more that they just really don’t need to.
It’s with some reluctance I find myself defending someone like Dr James Watson, the scientist in the middle of the current race row over DNA. Dr Watson suggested in an Sunday Times Magazine interview last weekend that black people were less intelligent than whites. An almighty row emerged, and his speaking engagement at the science museum was canceled. The Oxford Union is enjoying a similar row: it has invited Nick Griffin (leader of the BNP) and David Irving to speak in a debate on the holocaust, to much protest.
DNA claim first: what would these campaigners do if this claim were true? Dr Watson’s prodigious scientific reputation is rock solid. His social record is less so - he has suggested that mothers should be allowed to abort their child if it were gay, or that genetic engineering to make all girls attractive would be desirable. There’s a good deal of evidence to suggest this latest claim is based on personal prejudice, too. Make no mistake, I’m not standing up for this bigot.
But what he claims is possible. There are many genetic differences between different ethnic groups - well evidenced by different propensity to catch diseases. Africans, for example, are much more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. IQ is strongly hereditary. It’s entirely possible for different ethnicities to have different average intelligence. This could mean black people have higher or lower IQs than white. If such a claim were based on solid evidence, would the scientist concerned still be shouted down?
Some say it’s wrong even to look. To that I’d say if it’s legitimate to study differences between genders (life expectancy, map reading, or sex drive jump to mind) without being sexist, or whether a gay gene exists without being homophobic, then studying differences between races does not make you racist.
There’s a worrying trend to believe that “accepting diversity” means ignoring differences between us, or sweeping opinions we dislike under the rug. Not giving parties like the BNP, or holocaust deniers like David Irving a platform is part of the same problem. Ignoring differences between different social groups, whether gender, race, or anything else, means we risk ignoring potential strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. If it could be shown that women were far more intelligent than men would we expect gender parity at university? Or would we allow a greater number of women to attend due to greater ability? I’d favour the latter, myself.
Even more foolish is sweeping views we don’t like under the rug. The BNP is an increasingly powerful political force in the UK - their website has more hits than any other party. Their views are those of a large section of the population. If we allow other minority groups a voice, we must allow the BNP a voice.
Naturally, I have an alternative agenda. I don’t like the BNP all that much. While they are excluded from mainstream discussion, their views are unchallenged. No arguments, no condemnation, nothing - just them canvassing, campaigning and protesting. Too many people worry that if the BNP are given a platform, other people will be swayed. This is a common effect - we all believe other people are more easily led than we are. Patronising or what?
There is no dictatorship, junta or nationalistic ideology that won’t allow its supporters to speak out in its favour. ‘Liberals’, by banning speakers with ‘extreme’ views, are proving themselves in one specific area, little different. Free speech means allowing people who oppose your views to speak, even (especially?) if they wouldn’t give you the same privilege. The same goes for persecuting science that challenges beliefs you’d like to hold. Truth will out, and all that.
We’re all different. The people who’ve accepted that seem to be the ones who dislike them - the racists, the misogynists, the bigots. It’s the people who supposedly embrace diversity who are desperately pretending we’re all the same. Time to see black and white, and not just shades of grey.
Update 19/10 2pm: Dr Watson has been suspended by his US research institution.
