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: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:17AM
I disagree. Journalists are supposed to report the news, yes. But we have an entire class of journalists, called "investigative journalists". These are the detectives of the journalism world.
Editorial pages, you say? Sorry, the editorial page is where the editor dazzles you with bullshit, to sway you toward his line of thinking. The editorial page has been used to paint the DNC, RNC, communism, Catholicism, and anything else in a rosy hue. The editorial page is an "opinion page", and there is little if any fact checkiing done on those pages.
Newshounds tell you what is going on, investigative journalists try to tell you the story behind the story, and the editor tries to interpret the story so that his party looks good. I think that sums things up.
(Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @03:26PM
And where does "fact-checking" fall in your triumvirate? I'd argue that it falls in the realm of editorial work: interpreting the vague, content-free statements uttered by politicians in whichever way best suits the editor. Because there is just not enough actual reality in any of them to do anything else.
I'll give an example. It was the first item in the first story on factcheck.org [factcheck.org], and here's what they say:
It seems to me that the obvious reading of Trump's remarks is this: "If they can infiltrate the refugee stream in Jordan, why can't they infiltrate the refugee stream in the US as well?" Clinton's admission, then, is a statement that even she recognizes the risk, but is willing to allow refugees despite it. And Trump's clear implication is that Clinton is willing to put the well-being of Middle Eastern refugees ahead of the safety of American citizens.
Now, there's plenty of room for disagreement in the conclusion. You might think that the risk to American safety is trivial or unimportant, but the benefits to refugees are enormous. You might think that, despite the risks, allowing refugees is the right thing to do. You might think that we can do a better job at background checks than Jordan. And so on and so forth. But these are all matters of opinion, not fact. Even if you disagree with my reading of Trump's comments, that's still a matter of opinion.
Politicians -- and Trump is not substantively different in this regard -- are experts at talking a lot but saying very little. The really good ones make speeches that are like inkblot tests, where everyone in the audience hears something different. This is the reason that fact-check pieces are basically editorials: few politicians are careless enough to say things which can be called unequivocal lies. The fact-checker must interpret the candidate's words in an effort to figure out what he was "really" saying.
For instance, when somebody -- I forget who, except that I think it was a Republican -- called Obama "skinny" in some past election cycle, was it a racist dog-whistle? There's really no way to answer that question except by leaning on your biases. If you're in the group that thinks that all Republicans are racists, then you'll interpret it as racism. And when you're fact-checking a comment like, "So-and-so called Obama 'skinny,' a well-known racist dog-whistle," you'll rate it as True. You'll interpret the comment literally: "'skinny' is a racist dog-whistle." But if you think that Republicans are unfairly accused of racism, you'll interpret that same comment very differently and rate it False: "While 'skinny' is sometimes used as a racist dog-whistle, there is no indication that So-and-so meant it as anything other than a description of Obama's fit physique." The first fact-check goes to the literal words, while the second goes to the implication behind them (that So-and-so is a racist). Which approach is correct? Both? Neither? Do you call the statement True or False? True, With Caveats? Grossly Misleading, Though Technically True?
At some point you will end up with 2000-word articles to address a one-sentence sound bite. And you have to, because anything less than that is probably going to be just as misleading as the sound bite itself.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 17 2016, @06:54PM
"interpreting the vague, content-free statements uttered by politicians in whichever way best suits the editor."
Let me repeat the key phrase out of that: "whichever way suits the editor".
That means, opinion. Opinion isn't news, nor is it fact checking. It may be newsworthy to learn that Obama really likes Putin, but it's not really "news". It's an article on a famous person's opinion, and little more than meaningless. If, on the other hand, the EDITOR really admires Putin, it is less than meaningless. So, Joe Schmoe in Little Town, America, respects Putin. That isn't news, his opinion isn't news, and it belongs on the editorial page.
First year of journalism, every wannabe journalist learns that editorials aren't news. Opinions aren't news. Every Tome, Dick, and Harry can write submissions for the editorial page, giving their opinions pm anything, and everything. You or I may agree or disagree with those opinions, but they aren't news, they aren't facts, and they certainly aren't fact checking.
From your example, we can read Clinton's statement in a limited number of ways. Who says that she is talking about refugees in Jordan? Had she mentioned Jordan specifically, THEN we would know exactly what she meant. Someone's statement that she was talking about Jordan is merely an opinion. Did Clinton TELL HIM/HER that she meant Jordan? Or, did they just assume that because they choose to hear her words in the most favorable light?
I believe that Clinton has no intention of vetting refugees any better than Jordan does, or any of the European nations with open borders. And, that's opinion, once again. Clinton didn't tell me that, I can't know what is in her mind, so my opinion is opinion. And, it belongs on the editorial page, if I were to publish it.
Fact checkers. You've got to be very careful of them. The thrust of TFA is, Google can and will do the "fact checkiing" in a manner to meet their own agenda. It's safe to say that most, if not all, fact checkers have an agenda.
Do you trust Google to present the facts without a spin? I don't. I don't trust any of the brain trusts either. All the think tanks are funded by partisans, after all.
Let us not stop reading the news, and let's remember to read that news from multiple sources. THEN se can make up our own minds.
The "executive summary" offered by fact checkers is alright, I guess, but it leaves a lot of detail out.