It hasn't changed at all. It's still a novel idea that I'm trying to sell and having great difficulty doing it. Pieces of it have been accepted. At first, it appeared that precision journalism was computers and if you used computers you were a precision journalist. But the computer is just a tool.
Computers make it possible to screw up on an even-larger scale.
For example, in The Kansas City Star's series on the high incidence of AIDS among priests, the most obvious flaw was that it compared priest deaths from AIDS with the general population. But all Roman Catholic priests are males, and males have a much higher death rate from AIDS than females. Sure, it's a journalistic tradition to give scary but misleading information in the lead and then backpedal, but the backpedal was way too late, and the spurious comparison was beyond the range of reasonable exaggeration. I don't cringe so much at misuse as at missed opportunities, things done halfway. Computers can be useful to large numbers of reporters and therefore reporters ought to learn how to use them.