The LA Times Uses Robot Reporters

[HardOCP News]

This can't be good. When the world is overthrown by robots, who will be there to warn us?

Ken Schwencke, a journalist and programmer for the Los Angeles Times, was jolted awake at 6:25 a.m. on Monday by an earthquake. He rolled out of bed and went straight to his computer, where he found a brief story about the quake already written and waiting in the system. He glanced over the text and hit “publish.” And that’s how the LAT became the first media outlet to report on this morning’s temblor. “I think we had it up within three minutes,” Schwencke told me.

 

[Megalith]

No fact checking was required, of course.

 

[Methadras]

Journalism and fact checking are a thing of the past. Getting a story out first and being the first to get it out there is more important than facts. Facts are the first casualty in this particular war.

 

[PynkFloydd]

Journalism and fact checking are a thing of the past. Getting a story out first and being the first to get it out there is more important than facts. Facts are the first casualty in this particular war.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. I heard about this at my school a while ago, since they're now offering a combined computer science/journalism MA.

According to a study, "The algorithmically generated story garnered slightly higher scores on accuracy, trustworthiness, and objectivity ratings, but the journalist's story was statiscally 'more please to read.'"

http://towcenter.org/blog/automated-stories-using-algorithms-to-craft-news-content/

 

[cyclone3d]

Journalism and fact checking are a thing of the past. Getting a story out first and being the first to get it out there is more important than facts. Facts are the first casualty in this particular war.

Yep, just listen to or read just about any "breaking" story and you will find that it is full of misinformation.

Stories by certain "news outlets" are usually completely wrong and/or flat out lies and these "news outlets" choose to publish the story anyway because they have an agenda and they can't let the truth get in the way of it.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. I heard about this at my school a while ago, since they're now offering a combined computer science/journalism MA.

According to a study, "The algorithmically generated story garnered slightly higher scores on accuracy, trustworthiness, and objectivity ratings, but the journalist's story was statiscally 'more please to read.'"

http://towcenter.org/blog/automated-stories-using-algorithms-to-craft-news-content/

I would trust data gathering robots putting together stories like this from data gathered form databases of actual facts then pretty much any story from a real person in most "news outlet" companies. See above.

I think the person you responded to was referencing what I flat out said above.

 

[GaryJohnson]

I need to create a robot programmer that automatically authors code for software contracts. I'm sure nothing bad could come of it.

 

[BladeVenom]

So their best reporter is a robot.

 

[MrAgmoore]

My High School Canceled Dances Because Students Would Rather Stay Home and Text Each Other

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ers_are_texting_instead.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

 

[cyclone3d]

So their best reporter is a robot.

And why should this surprise anyone?

 

[BBA]

Actually, it's quite the opposite. I heard about this at my school a while ago, since they're now offering a combined computer science/journalism MA.

According to a study, "The algorithmically generated story garnered slightly higher scores on accuracy, trustworthiness, and objectivity ratings, but the journalist's story was statiscally 'more please to read.'"

http://towcenter.org/blog/automated-stories-using-algorithms-to-craft-news-content/

So you are saying the automated story is the only one telling the truth in today's media?

 

[PynkFloydd]

So you are saying the automated story is the only one telling the truth in today's media?

The reality that history is a subjective narrative is nothing new. Academic studies and statistics are also subjective and this shouldn't be shocking to anyone. You can easily see this if you check the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 19th Century. They actually bought into the whole Great Man Theory that Thomas Carlyle propagated and historical events were organized around this theory.

Currently, digital media studies are slowly emerging in order to study the effect that software and IP has on society. Harvard's Berkman Center has a lot of great scholarship on the cultural influences of such things, if you're interested.

Short answer: nobody/nothing is telling the entire, factual story.

 

[BBA]

The reality that history is a subjective narrative is nothing new. Academic studies and statistics are also subjective and this shouldn't be shocking to anyone. You can easily see this if you check the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 19th Century. They actually bought into the whole Great Man Theory that Thomas Carlyle propagated and historical events were organized around this theory.

Currently, digital media studies are slowly emerging in order to study the effect that software and IP has on society. Harvard's Berkman Center has a lot of great scholarship on the cultural influences of such things, if you're interested.

Short answer: nobody/nothing is telling the entire, factual story.

So you do not agree with the 'great man' theory? As far as I know, the only argument against it is that society molded the 'great men' into what they were, yet no one argues that the actions of 'great men' are any less remarkable.

Lets say, the champion boxer won every match and set records. Would the average guy be able to hold his own against the champion just because someone claimed the champ was only a product of society? Should Albert Einstein be considered nothing more than a product of his society, there fore his contribution to history is meaningless? Hmmm...reality is, there may just be something to this great man theory after all.