In a recent episode of The New York Times’ “The Daily” podcast, Counting the Infected, the team discussed how the newspaper handled tracking and analyzing data related to COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Beginning in early March, the Times formed a dedicated COVID-19 data team. This group of reporters and researchers were tasked with aggregating case and death data from a number of sources around the country. As the team evaluated the data they had on hand, they ran into a few roadblocks that highlight the great potential and serious limitations of data.

Taking a step back outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to recognize that data can be used in multiple ways. It can help tell and strengthen stories by providing detail and specific metrics to the situation at hand. Data can also be used as a source, similar to how reporters work with corporate spokespeople to ask questions about a topic or product. Depending on the data, it can be sliced and diced to provide more insight for broader education. If someone or some company has access to strong or unique data, they are in a unique position to be able to help tell a story that will educate others.

The Times used this same lens when viewing their COVID-19 data, which is when they realized their data was having shortcomings. Because they were tracking cases and deaths by location, they did not have too many details beyond those figures. Just like when interviewing a subject matter expert, they could only look at the data in so many ways to answer the many questions at hand (i.e., age, gender, race, profession, etc.).

While they were able to create a hive of data, they knew they needed more details that could help uncover the who, why and when of positive cases and deaths. After requesting data from the CDC with slow movement, The Times’ legal team sued the organization arguing that the newspaper was working to educate the public and this data would provide the general public with the valuable insights they needed to safely live and make decisions during this time. The New York Times won the suit and secured access to data on 1.5 million cases, which meant they had enhanced data on nearly 88 percent of cases reported in May. After reviewing the data, the Times was able to uncover key trends and patterns. An overarching trend was just how pervasive racial disparities are within nearly every aspect of the pandemic – specifically infection rates, working conditions and age. I highly recommend listening to the episode to learn more about the patterns and how the virus has impacted populations differently.

As marketing and communication professionals, securing compelling and unique data can feel like winning the lottery. Data can define truths and shed light on topics that can help demonstrate thought leadership and build credibility for an organization. However, data does not always have all the answers, especially when human error or ambiguity is present when asking questions and gathering the results.

When creating future campaigns that have the potential to leverage data, it is important to be grounded in knowing how to determine what stories are best told through data. While data can help make a topic more compelling, not all stories need the metrics. Knowing how to tell the difference will help prevent the misuse of data or losing a story to the lack of it.

Lastly, if a company has access to data, test its strength by asking questions. The best data can answer the tough questions and help tell a story in a new light. After the data has been analyzed and it is clear how it will shape the overall story, it can be shared with the greater public with confidence it will help educate effectively.