The New York Times is used to have graphics on its opinion section, as it did with its famous (and sometimes polemic) OP charts. But this is a step further. Is an infographics artist as columnist, the graphic made column. But it has one problem. Alberto uploaded on his blog the column as it was published:
And I agrre with him on the problem. The graphic should talk by itself. The text shouldn't benecessary. Maybe that's the next step.
But I would like to highlight a sentece from Cairo's analysis:
The infographics community has spent decades complaining about the little respect that directors and staff writers have to information visualization, Blow keeps showing what should be obvious: respect always should begins by ourselves. The graphics department of the NYTimes has earned the importance they have inside and outside the newsroom; step by step, story by story, always struggling for a bigger rigor, bigger quality, an increasing seriousness, defining the bounds between art and visual information. To the point that someone thinked that, oh miracle, a graphic artist could write on the opinion section, at the same page that Krugman, Kristof or Herbert. Blow, a 'grahic columnist' is just the culmination of a process started years ago.