As a non-data-science practitioner, I think the term works. "Data science", from what I gather, focuses on the work of collecting, collating, maintaining, and analyzing data. All science may rely on data but not all scientists work with data well.
In contrast, I think the term "data journalism" is poor. Because it isn't (typically) about the journalism of data, e.g. what's going on with the use of data. And so to talk about data journalism being a field (nevermind a niche field) makes it seem as if other kinds of journalism don't use data. Even the reporters who rely on 3 anecdotes/interviews to make a story are using data, they're just using a very poor form of it (what with data being the plural of anecdote).
I think David Leonhardt, the former editor of the NYT Upshot, said it well:
> Data journalism, ultimately, has the same aim as “quote journalism” and “anecdote journalism.” They all aspire to be “fact journalism” or, more eloquently, journalism.
In contrast, I think the term "data journalism" is poor. Because it isn't (typically) about the journalism of data, e.g. what's going on with the use of data. And so to talk about data journalism being a field (nevermind a niche field) makes it seem as if other kinds of journalism don't use data. Even the reporters who rely on 3 anecdotes/interviews to make a story are using data, they're just using a very poor form of it (what with data being the plural of anecdote).
I think David Leonhardt, the former editor of the NYT Upshot, said it well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/upshot/death-to-data-journ...
> Data journalism, ultimately, has the same aim as “quote journalism” and “anecdote journalism.” They all aspire to be “fact journalism” or, more eloquently, journalism.