8 ms·

I would argue that there are several logical problems with a jump from 'earthquake report' to 'news leak' or 'declaration of war'. Using only fifty words for an

I would argue that there are several logical problems with a jump from 'earthquake report' to 'news leak' or 'declaration of war'. Using only fifty words for an earthquake report implies that there was no explanation or analysis to be made of its effects. Most leaks and war declarations tend to require much more information to be covered completely, and I would not expect to find any that are fifty words or less. For a sense of scale, your comment was 188 words. My comment is 88 words.

seanccox 13y ago
It is a leap, true, but not an unfathomable one. My point is that such software is a nod to the primacy of expediency in the field of breaking news. I'm not certain that other kinds of breaking news would be treated differently, particularly those from official sources that utilize standard formats (like corporations and governments). If I may dig at your comment a little to illustrate my point: Your comment is shorter – more expedient, you seem to think – but you have not actually laid out any of the 'several logical problems' with my 'jump', you've merely made a claim that leaks/war declarations 'tend to require much more information' for complete coverage. I agree such issues should require that, however, I don't feel they get it. I humbly submit the coverage of the latest US invasion of Iraq, where the evidence overwhelmingly indicated a dearth of WMDs, and yet US government talking points were rarely disputed, and sometimes printed without critique. So, my hypothesis is that similar issues will definitely not get said coverage if expediency-by-software is valued more highly than analysis. There's no real solution to our difference of opinion, but you haven't actually refuted my logic, as you claim. We both agree there are different types of breaking news, and that they need to be treated differently. You trust that they will be, while I do not.
- gamerdonkey 13y ago
  I actually don't think our opinions differ that much. I just have trouble expressing my ideas. You seem to have hit it on the nose with your last statement. I am more optimistic that these scripts will be used to generate breaking news that doesn't (yet) require much human analysis, just information that must be quickly disseminated in a readable format (such as an earthquake's geophysical qualities). This would hopefully leave more resources that would allow more rigorous journalism (such as analysis of the effects of and response to an earthquake) to thrive in the future just as deficiently as now. The word count was intended to display just how little information might be conveyed in fifty words. The inclusion of my comment's word count was simply to make the comment self-referential. Both can be safely ignored.
  - seanccox 13y ago
    Aha! I understand now, and I also agree that our positions aren't that different. I happen to work for a media operation, and I tend to think they would outsource the whole operation (writing, editing, layout) to a computer, if given the chance. So, I'm a more of a Grinch about these innovations. I hope you're right, because contemporary journalism clearly needs to be doing something better with its time.

seanccox 13y ago

It is a leap, true, but not an unfathomable one. My point is that such software is a nod to the primacy of expediency in the field of breaking news. I'm not certain that other kinds of breaking news would be treated differently, particularly those from official sources that utilize standard formats (like corporations and governments). If I may dig at your comment a little to illustrate my point: Your comment is shorter – more expedient, you seem to think – but you have not actually laid out any of the 'several logical problems' with my 'jump', you've merely made a claim that leaks/war declarations 'tend to require much more information' for complete coverage. I agree such issues should require that, however, I don't feel they get it. I humbly submit the coverage of the latest US invasion of Iraq, where the evidence overwhelmingly indicated a dearth of WMDs, and yet US government talking points were rarely disputed, and sometimes printed without critique. So, my hypothesis is that similar issues will definitely not get said coverage if expediency-by-software is valued more highly than analysis. There's no real solution to our difference of opinion, but you haven't actually refuted my logic, as you claim. We both agree there are different types of breaking news, and that they need to be treated differently. You trust that they will be, while I do not.

gamerdonkey 13y ago
I actually don't think our opinions differ that much. I just have trouble expressing my ideas. You seem to have hit it on the nose with your last statement. I am more optimistic that these scripts will be used to generate breaking news that doesn't (yet) require much human analysis, just information that must be quickly disseminated in a readable format (such as an earthquake's geophysical qualities). This would hopefully leave more resources that would allow more rigorous journalism (such as analysis of the effects of and response to an earthquake) to thrive in the future just as deficiently as now. The word count was intended to display just how little information might be conveyed in fifty words. The inclusion of my comment's word count was simply to make the comment self-referential. Both can be safely ignored.
- seanccox 13y ago
  Aha! I understand now, and I also agree that our positions aren't that different. I happen to work for a media operation, and I tend to think they would outsource the whole operation (writing, editing, layout) to a computer, if given the chance. So, I'm a more of a Grinch about these innovations. I hope you're right, because contemporary journalism clearly needs to be doing something better with its time.