AIUI this is mainly to be used by news publications, which need to continuously build their credibility regardless, rather than as evidence in a courtroom.
You make a good point about ui and it's proving to be a tough problem to solve as half the crowd likes to go with the story and they care less about the source while the other half's first requirement is which newspaper or source.
Maybe there's a middle of the road approach or possibly offer both.
Well, we’ll have to wait and see how it gets used but I see potential for this being abused.
It’s not different from TV news vs Daily newspaper. One is more fluff than the other. When was the last time you saw an “ugly” news anchor. In the papers you don’t care what the reporter looks like.
During a sit down interview you at least have a chance to make your argument if the interviewer has misconceived something or it needs elaboration.
Current media recycles headlines to save on work cost. When you have to churn out 20 articles per day, you don’t have many options left.
This doesn’t prove anything.
Agreed. The signal density in many news articles is lower than what you would expect in a journal article or even a novel. This could be a very useful tool there.
My gut tells me this would also work for news. A lot of evidence to support the opposite of what was reported tends to appear 1-2 years later but that never gets reported on as much as the original story.
I'd advise against the news stand. Classic intelligence fieldwork ploy: if you make someone work a little for a bit of information, they're more likely to assign it a higher value.
Adding friction to your news consumption makes it feel higher quality, but is of course actually totally independent of that.
Yeah, that's a very valid point that I hadn't considered. I'm quite sure that a news organization like BBC News could make a convincing case for necessity of use in a lot of "breaking news" type situations.
Yeah, just that: they're too busy. Most news articles are valid for just one edition of a newspaper, so about half a day or even less if the newspaper is published more than once a day. It's write it and move on, in a lot of cases. Investigative journalism probably has more use for a system like this, but even then I doubt they'd want to fill in XML forms when they could just write sentences. Besides, usually you can trust an editor to read an article and remove the bits that aren't relevant based on their own judgment, instead of a 'priority' hint by the original author.
If there was a news site that purely had follow up to old stories, I'd subscribe. The media only provides it for things like trials that people continue paying attention to.
One reason people stall investigations is they know the press will forget after a few months.
This makes sense for big, well researched investigative journalism. But that is not the case for the other 95% of the drivel on most news sites -— the engagement driving crap that keeps the lights on.
Personally I'm more of the opinion "I'm not going to read your bullshit news at all". In arguments like this I see many people debating the finer details of App design etc. when the real question is why do we even need this product (news) at all! Part of the answer is also the answer to this article.. because everyone else does it.
I think it's a shame more people don't see the mainstream news, in App form, print, TV or whatever, as the farcical waste of time that it is. I guess it makes some of us feel a bit more important to be 'in the loop'.
It's been debated many times before so I won't go into it again, just thought I'd inject a bit of big-picture perspective.
reply