Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday October 15 2016, @07:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the snopes-way-this-will-work dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:50AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:50AM (#414768) Homepage Journal

    Journalists ought to report on the facts. They should not be "checking" them. Journalists aren't objective arbiters of truth, no matter how much they like to believe they are. Report on what Trump said, if it's newsworthy.

    So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries? You are woefully uninformed.

    As the old saw goes, 'it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.'

    You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:13AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:13AM (#414805)

    So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

    Exactly. Who, What, Where, When, Why. Fox News got the motto right, they just failed to live up to it about as badly as everybody else playing at journalism. "We report, you decide." The purpose of the journalist is to be in all of the places where news happens and reliably report those events to their subscribers. Tell me what happened, who did what and that sort of thing. Even the Why is starting to get into opinion in a lot of stories so at least be sure you report all of the proposed theories as to that one. And don't even play games of omission, yes a package for broadcast is three minutes tops, an article for print has a severe word limit, etc. But we are on the Internet now. Package the story up as nicely as you need to for mass sales, but put all of the stuff from the editing room floor on a link, put links to the source documents, etc. That is what I would like journalism to become, a running history archive with curators. Editorialists, pundits, bloggers, authors of think pieces, etc. have a place in the pipeline of informing the public, but it isn't on the front lines of journalism.

    But that isn't sexy. It doesn't make the reporter feel important enough. So when the Progressives came they had little trouble converting most of the existing reporters to the new job description they teach in J-school now, "make the world a better place." Sorry dude, beyond your pay grade. Some of the best reporters were ink stained wretches who were drunk most of the time, proving it isn't exactly the most intellectually demanding profession. Patience, diligence and a nose for news are the prime requisites along bravery bordering on stupidity for those who cover wars.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:02AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:02AM (#414812) Homepage Journal

      Exactly. Who, What, Where, When, Why. Fox News got the motto right, they just failed to live up to it about as badly as everybody else playing at journalism. "We report, you decide." The purpose of the journalist is to be in all of the places where news happens and reliably report those events to their subscribers. Tell me what happened, who did what and that sort of thing. Even the Why is starting to get into opinion in a lot of stories so at least be sure you report all of the proposed theories as to that one. And don't even play games of omission, yes a package for broadcast is three minutes tops, an article for print has a severe word limit, etc. But we are on the Internet now. Package the story up as nicely as you need to for mass sales, but put all of the stuff from the editing room floor on a link, put links to the source documents, etc. That is what I would like journalism to become, a running history archive with curators. Editorialists, pundits, bloggers, authors of think pieces, etc. have a place in the pipeline of informing the public, but it isn't on the front lines of journalism.

      So far, I'm with you, and well said. However, GP strongly implied that journalists should not collate/organize the information they collect, nor should they compare and contrast that information with other, either public or previously collected information.

      This is incorrect. A journalist isn't just a note taker. A journalist's job is (as you correctly state) to report what happens. However, providing context (not in the sense of opinion, but in the sense of other relevant information that may or may not be contemporaneous) is also an important function of a journalist.

      As an example, If a bank is robbed and the FBI releases a statement that they have captured a single male bank robber, even though numerous bank employees and customers related that the bank was robbed by three bikini-clad women, GP would have reporters simply report the varying accounts of what happened without any follow up. That's bad journalism. Rather, a good journalist should further question both the FBI and the bank employees/customers about the discrepancies, and attempt to discern those same five 'W's about that as well.

      But that isn't sexy. It doesn't make the reporter feel important enough. So when the Progressives came they had little trouble converting most of the existing reporters to the new job description they teach in J-school now, "make the world a better place."

      Here's where we part company. There is no ideological bias in that sort of activity. Whether it's those who you call Progressive or those you call Conservative (who are usually radical reactionaries), that sort of behavior is all too common. Inserting your personal preferences into unrelated areas is quite tiresome and generally causes me to ignore you. Which is a shame, since you apparently had something useful (see above) to say. Perhaps you do at other times as well, but as soon as you interject your political leanings into something completely unrelated, I generally tune out.

      Sorry dude, beyond your pay grade. Some of the best reporters were ink stained wretches who were drunk most of the time, proving it isn't exactly the most intellectually demanding profession. Patience, diligence and a nose for news are the prime requisites along bravery bordering on stupidity for those who cover wars.

      That's often accurate and not very surprising, but certainly useful in this context. If you'd left out the couple of sentences immediately prior to this, your post would actually be worthy of an insightful mod.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @03:41PM

        by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @03:41PM (#415225)

        However, GP strongly implied that journalists should not collate/organize the information they collect, nor should they compare and contrast that information with other, either public or previously collected information.

        I did no such thing. I said that in response to some Trump bloviation, reporters should seek out comment from the Clinton, Johnson, and Stein campaigns; and that the Trump campaign should be given a chance to respond to those comments. Granted, I did not expressly state that all of this should be put together into a single article, but, as it's all part of the same story, that would be the obvious approach.

        As an example, If a bank is robbed and the FBI releases a statement that they have captured a single male bank robber, even though numerous bank employees and customers related that the bank was robbed by three bikini-clad women, GP would have reporters simply report the varying accounts of what happened without any follow up. That's bad journalism. Rather, a good journalist should further question both the FBI and the bank employees/customers about the discrepancies, and attempt to discern those same five 'W's about that as well.

        I would do no such thing, because a bank robbery is not an election and it makes no sense to report on the two the same way. The male isn't running for Bank Robber of the USA, and his opponents aren't members of The Three Bikini-Clad Women Party.

  • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @02:43PM

    by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @02:43PM (#415206)

    You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

    That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.

    Also:

    So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

    If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.

    Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @03:36PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 17 2016, @03:36PM (#415221) Homepage Journal

      You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

      That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.

      Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks for sharing the results of what, I'm sure, was an exhaustive review of my posting history [soylentnews.org]. Are there any particular bits of snark you really enjoyed? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Also:

             

      So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

      If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.

      Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.

      I see that in addition to being obnoxious, you also have problems with reading comprehension [soylentnews.org]. A fabulous combination. I commend you, sir.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @04:04PM

        by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @04:04PM (#415234)

        Are there any particular bits of snark you really enjoyed? Inquiring minds want to know.

        No, I'm afraid not. Most of your snark falls in the "You're dumb, and I will not waste my time with you" category, so there's not a lot of variety. Kudos for mixing it up a little with the heavy sarcasm here, I suppose. But you're laying it on really thick to imply that I'm too dumb to get it otherwise. So it's just a slightly different form of your usual.

        A straight response would've been more effective, I think. I wouldn't have been able to tell if you were responding genuinely or if you were mocking me in some way that I just wasn't seeing. That's not snark, of course, but most snark is just so mindless that I'm not sure I can ever really appreciate it.