Posted on 03/26/2014 4:48:59 AM PDT by Star Traveler
The Los Angeles Times was the first newspaper to publish a story about an earthquake on Monday - thanks to a robot writer.
Journalist and programmer Ken Schwencke created an algorithm that automatically generates a short article when an earthquake occurs.
Mr Schwencke told Slate magazine that it took around three minutes for the story to appear online.
"Robo-journalism" is increasingly being used in newsrooms worldwide.
The LA Times is a pioneer in the technology which draws on trusted sources - such as the US Geological Survey - and places data into a pre-written template.
As well as the earthquake report, it also uses another algorithm to generate stories about crime in the city - with human editors deciding which ones need greater attention.
Other news organisations have experimented with algorithm-based reporting methods in other areas, particularly sports.
The generated story does not replace the journalist, Mr Schwencke argued, but instead allows available data to be quickly gathered and disseminated.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
No writing with bias on side side or the other is still bias - and not all bias is bad. We don’t think our bias is bad here. But writing just the facts of the matter, without bias, allows the individual to actually “think for oneself” - and thus “insert” the bias that they have individually, you see.
Actually, I was referencing Rumsfeld’s “quip” earlier this week.
The “weather radio” broadcasts have been entirely robotic for years, but that’s just a speech algorithm that repeats a fixed text that is continually edited somewhere by humans.
Thanks Star Traveler.
It would be CLEARLY OBVIOUS when someone looked at the algorithm, too. ... :-) ...
You can’t as easily look into the “workings of the mind” of the liberal reporter. You can only see his results, on the output of the story.
BUT ... with a computer algorithm, you can CLEARLY SEE THE INTENT!
Ah .... yes, Rumsfeld is always good at those sound bites ... :-) ...
Uh.... no. Not quite...
"...with human editors deciding which ones need greater attention."
I was talking about “within” the article.
So far I haven’t seen it reported that they are going to have Computer algorithm editors ... :-) ...
Doesn’t matter what’s “in” the article if the editors decide it’s not going in the paper. A failsafe for any attempted wayward “thinking” a robot might try and pull. Can never be too careful...
If you notice ... this article went in quicker than any reporter could have detected the story, and then “written” about it.
Schwenche is wrong. Machines will replace most 'journalists'. It won't matter much to those of us on the right. Liberal bias will be programmed into the robots...
For example: If a crime involves a person with a "D" by their name, the term Democrat is not to be used until deep in the story. If an "R" is by a person's name in a crime story the term "Republican" will be used in the headline and first paragraph"...
If a violent crime involves the term 'black' that term will be dropped altogether. If a violent crime uses the term "white" that term should be used in the headline and first paragraph...
Etc. Etc.Etc. (Style book for Assh*les Vol 1 of a 50 volume set)
That kind of algorithm can easily be spotted and exposed. You can’t hide that type of “programming” in the code.
Democrats who run newsrooms would NOT bother to hide bias in code... they’re proud of their hate.
True ... and then they would clearly be exposed ... once again ... :-) ...
The best part of it is that eventually a system based on logic would break down if it was programed with liberal bias. Too many conflicts.
I’d like to see what happens when the first robot reporter gets fired for going off the leftist reservation.
These kind of stories are pre-canned anyway if it’s not a big quake. Earthquake of magnitude X struck at time Y with an epicenter of Z. Might as well automate it.
You forgot 'extremist' - a term ONLY to be applied to Christians, conservatives and libertarians...NEVER to Muslims, liberals, Communist or members of Occupy.
How is this different from “current practices?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.