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: 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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.