As someone who has a PhD in studying misinformation, I can professionally say that this is a fucking stupid idea.
Reposted from
Dan Froomkin/Press Watch/Heads Up News
Soon-Shiong saying "the reader can press a button and get both sides of that exact same story based on that story" is among the scariest and stupidest things I've ever heard. There'd be an alternative version of each story written by AI in Trumpese??? www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/m...
Comments
This is the result of their “pick your own facts” mentality.
https://abc7.com/post/oroville-school-shooting-california-christian-victims-idd-sheriff-reveals-more-details-suspect/15625227/
Fun question: do we both-sides weather news? Sports news? Traffic? Crime?
Yet both-sidesism is considered legit for political reporting in this country.
Journalism is written without bias, presenting only the facts and second party quotations. The author’s voice is limited to editorials. It exists for accountability and record.
“The media” is for attention, clicks, and profit.
It's very difficult to get over the bias obtained through years of life experience. We just can't start behaving like robots with no emotions.
In reporting particularly, journalism sticks with a formula.
What you are really referring to is noise within communication (see Schramm’s model). Semantic noise cannot be avoided - it’s just you
Boundaries of journalism are loose and defined by biases and incomplete facts (which makes it difficult to draw strict lines)
Put the boundaries of the military industrial complex and you get the answer: YES
Put the boundaries of innocent people of Iraq, the answer is definitely: NO
Both are facts, just boundaries and perspectives are different
It provides an overview with details that allows readers to form their own conclusions. Was “Animal Farm” about a literal farm or a bigger society issue? The individual draws their answer from their knowledge construct… some people do miss the bigger picture.
Opinions or perspectives are bias of the individual void of the facts or truths and fought within the individual.
On the one hand, Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal.
On the other hand, he was the true paleo Alpha Male.
You decide.
Cool…show me both sides to this story.
I fucking loathe this man.
It is over.
The book demonstrates the ability of governments to alter reality and manipulate facts to suit their narrative.
They want to *sell* both sides of a story to both sides of the false dichotomy market they create.
But they've already conditioned #consumers to exclusively read the Red/Blue pill sources for news. (Fox, etc)
* Pushes button *
“Sunny skies for the foreseeable future”
I used to read the L.A. Times when I lived out there. 😥
It's also famous for making up false histories in it's reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/technology/ai-chatbots-disinformation.html
Dreaming of the day we can replace artificial intelligence with some plain common sense.
But this is right up there!!
Facts require evidence, opinions don't.
While there can be many sides to opinions, there can only be one side to facts.
But we also still hate / kill each other because we look different or believe in different fairytale dudes that live in the sky. That falls la tad on the embarrassingly stupid side.
Guess it started with alternative facts.
what good are posts like this if you can't come up with something to do abt this ?
In the field of news and AI, this is a horrible development I didn't know about.
but the trouble is that overall on BS, for every post with an idea on what to do there must be 100 just telling us abt some horror story
it is the ratio that is the problem
You fight these media empires by becoming media, but they're doing this because the field doesn't make money.
On the other hand, Trump says he knows several people who say Hegseth doesn't have a drinking problem.
Slaves learned a 'trade'.
Since it's clearly not working that way for some, perhaps this is a version of misspelled Nigerian emails? A self-sort.
I don't want to hear the other side in a public venue when their discourse attacks morality and civil rights.
Some ideas do not have a justifiable second side in a just society.
Nobody in either party is being nominated for sainthood.
Not dressed up. Literally changed.
So mind those buttons!
…expertise is based on the number of zeros.
I mean, a rich guy told me that once so it has to right.
2.) Scott Jennings being named to the editorial board? See number one.
The human eye can detect a single photon. If there was a candle of truth you could easily see it in a large dark space - nothing to argue. So the answer to this problem? Light many more candles representing a “different truth” or roll out the flood lights.
No opinions. Just facts.
I mean, I bet its been decades since this guy booked a rental car, and then tried to make changes by dealing with a bot....
They're literally training the models to output what they want them to output directly because doing it by the training datasets wasn't good enough.
“The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.”
referring to the phenomenon of the Press providing legitimacy to unsupported viewpoints in an effort to appear even-handed.
There is no 'both sides' of some stories.
There's truth and lies.
*ducks thrown objects*
What a stupid waste of EVERYONE'S time.
Why is my head wet?
As a software developer, I would think that the very next step would be to specify one's political orientation in a profile, and have the website auto-generate content matching one's own bias.
At what point did so much of society decide that stories had two sides? It reminds me of this like, conflation people have of freedom of speech and equity of that speech, as if it must all be treated the same.
But we weren’t taught to think critically, see multiple sides to issues.
We were told to memorize and that are “feelings” are valid belief structures.
It's pretty clear a deal was struck, the public just wasn't party to it.