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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:58AM (#414835)

    > 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.