I'd refer to what Bono speaks of as "datavisim" though it doesn't have the same catchy moniker. As some have pointed out, what some call "facts" are really just conclusions about the particular data involved. Multiple people can look at the exact same data and derive totally different conclusions - and that's WITHOUT worrying about politics or causes. Some conclusions are appropriate, some less so, and as Steve quite correctly points out having access to the underlying data can help cross check conclusions.

Even then there can be issues with data as in is this accurate data? Is it complete data? Is it data that is appropriate for whatever conclusions are drawn? Is it appropriate data to even USE for a given purpose? Is there other data not present which affects the conclusions?

This isn't to say we CAN'T draw conclusions from data, just that great care needs to be taken. I've noticed an increasing tendency across the political spectrum for a kind of "technocratic religiosity" in that data (or more correctly conclusions drawn from data) are being used as brickbats to lessen or even silence opposition. Shades of groupthink.

Leaving the philosophical realm behind, I've done volunteer work for non-profits and even local governments to help them manage thier data. It is definitely a field where opportunity abounds and regardless of political persuasion can be an opportunity to light the proverbial candle in the darkness. Even something as simple as a contact management solution or possibly a data warehouse to track and analyze donations or expenses can make a huge difference.

And sometimes it's just fun to take a dataset and play around with it for no particular reason other than to learn. Kind of like the guy who "pinged the Internet" just for fun.