SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google News will begin labeling "fact-checking" articles that appear major news story clusters. Richard Gingras, the "Head of News" at Google, writes that Google News will check for schema.org ClaimReview markup:
Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter's Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself.
In the seven years since we started labeling types of articles in Google News (e.g., In-Depth, Opinion, Wikipedia), we've heard that many readers enjoy having easy access to a diverse range of content types. Earlier this year, we added a "Local Source" Tag to highlight local coverage of major stories. Today, we're adding another new tag, "Fact check," to help readers find fact checking in large news stories. You'll see the tagged articles in the expanded story box on news.google.com and in the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps, starting with the U.S. and the U.K.
TechCrunch notes that "The Schema community builds markups for structured data on the internet. The group is sponsored by Google but also has support from Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @08:21PM
> we know, e.g., that Fox went to court to establish their right to intentionally lie to their viewers.
Oh that is delicious because it is so false.
And guess who debunked it? Yeah, that ultra-left, totally biased, propaganda site Snopes - Fox Skews. [snopes.com]
Where's the "+1 More Meta than Meta" moderation when you need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:01AM
Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false.[1] [archive.li]
The S/N comments engine -still- does nasty things to %22 in hyperlinks.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:12AM
A bit of investigation (I don't trust Snopes) seems to validate your claim in a rather peculiar way. What it establishes is that there is no requirement in law not to intentionally lie and present those lies as truth, that FOX (a member station, not the main network) was accused of this but this was not a forbidden activity.
You can say that this wasn't Fox network, and have reasonable grounds in this particular case, but this case set a precedent that there was no law prohibiting the media from lying. Apparently this was considered so obvious that it wasn't a major element in the case.
So the only thing incorrect about what I asserted was saying that Fox was the defendant, rather than merely one of their member stations. It's also true that there were no amicus curiae briefs filed by other media saying that intentional lying in a new program is or ought to be illegal.
So while I may feel that Fox takes more advantage of this than other networks, all the networks seem to support the lack of a requirement for honesty. Which means that I don't really know that Fox is the major user of this permission.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:58AM
> So the only thing incorrect about what I asserted was saying that Fox was the defendant
Oh that is total bullshit and you know it. You completely mischaracterized the case in your original post in order to make a point about fox's motives. And now you are hiding behind a literalist defense in order to pretend that you didn't care about the conclusions of your post.
> this case set a precedent that there was no law prohibiting the media from lying.
No it didn't. You know what sets that precedent? The fucking first amendment. And even then that does not immunize them from libel laws.