That’s not surprising for a man whose career as a visual journalist has taken him to the newsrooms of The Detroit News, The New York Times and most recently at National Geographic Magazine.
The difference between the news graphics he created in those venerable newsrooms and what he’s creating now, back again at the Times, is a matter of opinion — his own opinion. As their first-ever visual Op-Ed columnist, Blow ferrets out interesting data as the starting point and ultimate support for editorial opinion.
His column appears in the Times every other Saturday.
“When I find a compelling topic — one that I have something to say about —and there’s some interesting visual hook, then that is a column possibility,” Blow said in a telephone interview with another visual journalist, retired Poynter faculty George Rorick.
I had the pleasure of eavesdropping on their conversation about the column, an interesting meeting of the minds between two great visual thinkers. In addition to the column, Blow recently launched a new blog called By the Numbers, a forum on the Times‘ site to showcase many different forms of visual expression. Here is the edited interview.
George Rorick: What you’re doing is so unusual. Can you describe your position?
Charles Blow: We call it a visual columnist. I’m not exactly sure if that’s the proper description. But, what I’m doing is using visual evidence to support arguments in persuasive essay. I use charts and maps and diagrams to support my positions.
What inspired you to do this? What are you hoping to accomplish with this?
Blow: The Times had used Op charts — which were charts that appeared on the Op Ed page for quite some time. There are still some produced now, by contributors. From the first time I saw it, I thought it was a great idea — that you could loosen up the rigors and the confines of data from the news pages, where you have to be completely objective and answer every possible question in the data. To have a looser interpretation of the data and be able to say, “This data has holes, and that’s OK. Here are what the holes are, but there is still value in it, in some ways.”
There is a lot of freedom that being able to be subjective allows. I thought that would be fantastic to see how far we could go using data and charts to kind of support editorial decisions and opinion.
I find it a fascinating kind of exercise because there’s a certain part of data that is completely objective — the numbers are what they are, if they’re true or false. There’s a kind of cut and dried sensibility there. And it’s an interesting balance in trying to mix that and marry it and not dilute or corrupt the data, but at the same time, use it as a support mechanism. I like trying to strike that balance.
Is there any one article that has really caught fire? That you’ve gotten a lot of feedback on?
Blow: Well, my most recent article got somewhere above 500 e-mails. And they still trickle in.
It’s always very interesting. Very different from my previous days here (at the Times) in the graphics department in the newsroom, and also at National Geographic — where you rarely receive any mail. There, if you got two or three e-mails a week, that was quite a bit, and that was for the entire department.
When I publish now, the day I publish if I wait until noon that day to check my e-mail, there are a hundred, 200, sometimes 300 e-mails. This time, there were 500 by the time I came to work on Monday.
It’s overwhelming, actually, to know that people are so passionate about the subjects that you cover. And they have a lot of very interesting things to say. Obviously, not everybody agrees with you. But that’s not the point. The point is that readers are engaging in the work and giving you feedback on how they receive it.
What was this column about?
Blow: In that particular case, it was a column called Racism and the Race. It explored the role of racism and how it could be playing in how the poll numbers are reading — and how it could work out to be an advantage for John McCain in November.
I was bracing for some kind of a backlash on that piece. But, most of the people who responded were readers who identified themselves as white and who were basically confessing that they also knew people who refused to vote for Obama simply because he is black — and those people would not say it in public.
It was compelling to read those e-mails. But also the idea that people kind of latch on to you as a personality. And that they somehow feel connected to your work and your column, not just as part of The New York Times.
That was interesting that people were feeling comfortable and wanted to share their experiences.
A column that I read that I really like, just FYI, is the one titled Why is Mom in Rehab?
Blow: In fact, I thought that I would get more mail from that story. And that was the one that had the least amount of response from readers.
It’s interesting that you bring it up, because it was the most visually ambitious and data rich of all of the pieces.
And what I found is that doesn’t necessarily work with my readers. In fact, the more simple the charting, the more they kind of respond to the piece.
They want provocative, interesting points made in a strong way, and simply. And so, I’ve kind of become less visually ambitious in the column, as a result of this job. I think I’m becoming less visual all around. Because I know, from my experiences so far, that’s not what my readers are responding to.
They want you to make a strong point and give them that in a visual nugget that they can digest right away — and kind of ruminate on why I find it interesting.
That makes sense, too. A lot of graphics are overdone. If you can make it so that you can get right to the point, that’s so important. I think what you’re doing will help visual journalists in the long run to get a better feeling for what they need to do.
Who do you answer to in your position? Are you very independent?
Blow: Very, very, very independent. Almost frighteningly so. No one’s asking what I’m going to write. I assume that there is veto power if something is completely out of bounds, but beyond that, there is very little oversight. You’re pretty much a sovereign nation as an Op Ed columnist. That obviously has its benefits, but it also means that you have a lot of responsibility to come up with something that’s solid and meaningful to the readers.
How do you come up with your topics? Are you in the newsroom on a daily basis?
Blow: No, not at all. I’m on the thirteenth floor. The newsroom is on the second, third and fourth floors. I rarely go down, unless I want to talk to someone about data, like maybe to the polling people, they’re in the newsroom. I use a lot of polls in my column, so I’m at their desk quite a bit, but not on a daily basis. I’m very much detached from the news cycle and that process.
I think where you were going with the question is that — No. I’m not overhearing the buzz of the newsroom and soaking up what might be newsy.
Right.
Blow: And, in fact, I miss some of that. But the way that I come up with topics is that, I’m reading all of the time. The television is on in my office, all of the time on news stations.
And I’m trying plug into the cultural zeitgeist and what’s relevant in the moment. And develop ideas based on that — always running through the prism of — what is my opinion about these things that are happening? And how do I make that something that readers might care about?
So, I’m having ideas all of the time. The question becomes, is there some visual hook to support that argument? That cancels out quite a few ideas.
When I find a compelling topic — one that I have something to say about — and there’s some interesting visual hook, then that is a column possibility.
When you have a story that’s really compelling, but there’s no visual merit, what do you do with it?
Blow: I just pass it. There are nine other columnists at the Times. And to a large degree, we’re writing about some of the same subjects. And I feel like, someone will touch it, if I don’t offer my opinion about that.
But, as I develop an audience, my readers really look to me to bring something extra, not just the opinion. They look for the visual hook. They want to be shown something in a different way. And I think I owe it to them not to just fall back into a default position. … The way my job is described and set up is to offer that extra visual hook.
You mentioned your audience. Who are they?
Blow: It’s hard to know. Most of the e-mails don’t come with the titles or descriptions of who the people are. But the kinds of comments that they offer are very much on the thesis of the essay. Rarely do I get any e-mail about the visual components.
They never seem to discuss the merits of the visual. They may discuss the content of the visual, and say, “This is an interesting point, glad somebody made it,” or “I really don’t agree with your point here. You should look at something else.” But in this context, they don’t separate the visual from column in the way that my experience was both at the Times, before, and at National Geographic. There, the visual seemed to be sort of separate thing from the authorship of the piece. Obviously, it was a separate thing from the authorship of the piece. The author wrote about something and there was an accompanying visual.
In this case, they know that it’s all me. And so they don’t separate it out as a different talking point.
Are you working with a staff, or do you create everything on your own?
Blow: It’s mostly me, but I do have a fantastic assistant. Her name is Hilary Howard. She helps with fact checking and chasing down numbers and facts and what have you.
Do you miss being in a newsroom?
Blow: A little, but not much. I do like the idea that there are tons of newsy ideas swirling around. And you can overhear things that can spark something in you and make you chase another story, or another graphic possibility.
But you prefer to read and think and come up with your own ideas?
Blow: Well, I’ve developed that muscle, being in this job.
And also, there’s a kind of struggle that happens in the newsroom with visual people — that a lot of people have struggled with, and many people have done a good job to change writers’ and editors’ opinions of the role of visuals in the newsroom, but that is a continuing fight. And, quite frankly, I enjoy not having to have to fight it anymore.
In this role, it’s not even a conversation.
From my experience, that would have to be a tremendous relief!
Blow: Yes.
You sound like you feel very good about what you’re doing now.
Blow: I love it. I think it’s the best job I’ve ever had in my life.
Is there anything else you’d like to tell people about in this interview?
Blow: My blog just started. I will have this blog on the Opinion part of the Web site. It’s called By the Numbers.
What I’m doing is trying to provide a forum for discussion of all things statistical that can and are being (shared) through visual expressions. But also to provide something of a community for people to submit things. And it’s not just for people who do charts, maps and diagrams — but people who do short films, futurists, people who solve problems through architecture and product design — anyone with an interesting visual idea or concept. We’re going to try to highlight it in this space.
You want people to send visual examples to you. Is that right?
Blow: Exactly.
