3 ms·

It's worth asking whether "thousands of articles on company earnings reports each quarter" constitutes journalism.

by biztos 8y ago

freehunter 8y ago
I think the obvious answer is "if it can be done by a machine today, it's not journalism". It's stuff that journalists are expected to do, but it's busy work that takes time away from actual journalism.
- biztos 8y ago
  Yeah I would assume that there are some interesting stories hidden in the earnings reports, but your typical regurgitated press release style "article" is about the least useful way of presenting the data I can think of. I hope the financial reporters (or whatever they're called) would be free to do more digging into anomalies, and have more help spotting those anomalies, thanks to software.
criddell 8y ago
I'd call it reporting rather than journalism but that isn't based on anything other than how I think about the two things. One is a mechanical regurgitation and the other requires some thought to make connections or inferences.
atakiel 8y ago
It's definitely a great question. Even if the articles separately would be considered mere reporting, is the creation of the tool part of the journalistic process? Another good one might be whether there's an inherent gain in machine-generated news to play by the same rules and constraints as regular human generated news? Is a traditional news article the correct format for a machine generated news, or if some of the constraints of traditional articles are due to human limitations. Basically, which of the rules of traditional articles are due to the creator and which are there to make it easier to consume the information for the reader. Is there a gain in creating 1 000 articles of company earnings versus condensing or distributing the same (roughly) information in another manner. Mainly, would the reader be able to gain more from news created in another format or medium. What happens here, is it similar to when newspapers moved from print to web? Initially staying in almost the same format as they had been for hundred years? When we talk about tools and intermediate forms in relation to journalism and journalistic process, there's also the question of transparency. Is only the end product journalism, or is the end product only a medium for the message? For example, The Correspondent has been a vanguard in this front in traditional journalism, opening up the intermediate forms of the process to the public. Should we consider for example the aforementioned "thousands of articles on company earnings reports from each quarter" as a intermediate form, rather than the journalistic end product - just a transparent intermediate form? If so, through that lens, is article as a format still the best means for sharing this information?

It's worth asking whether "thousands of articles on company earnings reports each quarter" constitutes journalism.

by biztos 8y ago

It's worth asking whether "thousands of articles on company earnings reports each quarter" constitutes journalism.

I think the obvious answer is "if it can be done by a machine today, it's not journalism". It's stuff that journalists are expected to do, but it's busy work that takes time away from actual journalism.

biztos 8y ago
Yeah I would assume that there are some interesting stories hidden in the earnings reports, but your typical regurgitated press release style "article" is about the least useful way of presenting the data I can think of. I hope the financial reporters (or whatever they're called) would be free to do more digging into anomalies, and have more help spotting those anomalies, thanks to software.

criddell 8y ago

I'd call it reporting rather than journalism but that isn't based on anything other than how I think about the two things. One is a mechanical regurgitation and the other requires some thought to make connections or inferences.

atakiel 8y ago

It's definitely a great question. Even if the articles separately would be considered mere reporting, is the creation of the tool part of the journalistic process? Another good one might be whether there's an inherent gain in machine-generated news to play by the same rules and constraints as regular human generated news? Is a traditional news article the correct format for a machine generated news, or if some of the constraints of traditional articles are due to human limitations. Basically, which of the rules of traditional articles are due to the creator and which are there to make it easier to consume the information for the reader. Is there a gain in creating 1 000 articles of company earnings versus condensing or distributing the same (roughly) information in another manner. Mainly, would the reader be able to gain more from news created in another format or medium. What happens here, is it similar to when newspapers moved from print to web? Initially staying in almost the same format as they had been for hundred years? When we talk about tools and intermediate forms in relation to journalism and journalistic process, there's also the question of transparency. Is only the end product journalism, or is the end product only a medium for the message? For example, The Correspondent has been a vanguard in this front in traditional journalism, opening up the intermediate forms of the process to the public. Should we consider for example the aforementioned "thousands of articles on company earnings reports from each quarter" as a intermediate form, rather than the journalistic end product - just a transparent intermediate form? If so, through that lens, is article as a format still the best means for sharing this information?