3 ms·
Reporting what actually went on is an act of creation. Any good story requires detective work, something that is based a lot on intuition, interpersonal communi
by dannycodes 11y ago
Reporting what actually went on is an act of creation. Any good story requires detective work, something that is based a lot on intuition, interpersonal communication, and lateral thinking. These skills are not easy to automate. Also, you'll never get the complete story, some guesswork and logic is required to fill in the holes and deliver a cohesive narrative. So in that sense you'd need quite the impressive program to uncover the truth behind, for example, watergate.
- protomyth 11y agoI am surely not one arguing robots, etc. can do a reporter's job better than a person. No, what I am arguing is this continued BS of who is creative is basically a "No True Scotsman" commentary. On the other hand, I am very little impressed by the quality of what passes for journalism and am pretty confident that a computer could write much of what I see with better fact checking. Very much like CASE tools of old were used to write programs. At least a robot might be programmed with the courtesy to quote the whole thought and not make cuts that can be attacked or change the meaning. As to the narrative, too many journalists write their articles as if they were pundits defending their beliefs and "trying to change the world". It is great to be engaging and write something that interests people, but leave the punditry for the political campaigns.