Based on the stream of false reporting coming from Bloomberg, The New York Times and CNN, should one assume all three have been “curated” right out of the News app?
There's a difference between news you don't like, and false reporting. If these humans do some fact checking, also, to a certain extent, that's only helpful. And if Apple has the money to pay human curators, that's good, much better than computers. Think a human DJ vs. a computer mixed playlist, I guess. My only problem with this would be if somehow all news sources out there would be equated with each other, and given room, just because they are on the other side of the spectrum in relation to others. Because that would be false equivalency, and that is why it is important to let readers filter out any news source they do not like, or trust. And I mean, completely filter out certain sources, from anywhere in the News app.
I really don't understand how one could make such assertions given the vast and verifiable falsity of recent stories to come from all three organizations. And I won't even consider organizations like Business Insider, BuzzFeed or HuffingtonPost. Those are complete dreck.
Any news organization will have false stories, but not many, and if pointed out, and verifiable, they retract and apologize, which I believe CNN and others you mention are doing (I've seen that they do it). So, maybe there were some mistakes made, but they are not vast, and not a constant stream of falsehoods. Just because their coverage is not slanted towards the favorable coverage of someone, does not mean it's false, or fake. I'd be more concerned of people peddling straight-up conspiracy theories, and people who associate themselves and appear on sites like InfoWars, and others like them, or straight up lie, to get people so tired of hearing it, that they start believing it. Nowadays the contest seems to be who can lie with more impunity and with a straight face more, where people get desensitized to it. So, in my opinion, we're so far gone in our echo chambers and bubbles, that the best you can do is fact-check things as much as possible, and let people filter out themselves what they don't like or trust.
Control (sorry, curation) of news and information is inevitably political. I don’t understand how anyone can dress it up as anything else. It doesn’t matter what your political persuasion is, if someone, whether human or an algorithm, is deciding what information is sent out, it is tainted.
Based on the stream of false reporting coming from Bloomberg, The New York Times and CNN, should one assume all three have been “curated” right out of the News app?
There's a difference between news you don't like, and false reporting. If these humans do some fact checking, also, to a certain extent, that's only helpful. And if Apple has the money to pay human curators, that's good, much better than computers. Think a human DJ vs. a computer mixed playlist, I guess. My only problem with this would be if somehow all news sources out there would be equated with each other, and given room, just because they are on the other side of the spectrum in relation to others. Because that would be false equivalency, and that is why it is important to let readers filter out any news source they do not like, or trust. And I mean, completely filter out certain sources, from anywhere in the News app.
I really don't understand how one could make such assertions given the vast and verifiable falsity of recent stories to come from all three organizations. And I won't even consider organizations like Business Insider, BuzzFeed or HuffingtonPost. Those are complete dreck.
Any news organization will have false stories, but not many, and if pointed out, and verifiable, they retract and apologize, which I believe CNN and others you mention are doing (I've seen that they do it). So, maybe there were some mistakes made, but they are not vast, and not a constant stream of falsehoods. Just because their coverage is not slanted towards the favorable coverage of someone, does not mean it's false, or fake. I'd be more concerned of people peddling straight-up conspiracy theories, and people who associate themselves and appear on sites like InfoWars, and others like them, or straight up lie, to get people so tired of hearing it, that they start believing it. Nowadays the contest seems to be who can lie with more impunity and with a straight face more, where people get desensitized to it. So, in my opinion, we're so far gone in our echo chambers and bubbles, that the best you can do is fact-check things as much as possible, and let people filter out themselves what they don't like or trust.
Apart from the political angle, Bloomberg's "spy chip" story has not been retracted (as far as I have heard) and it borders on, if not crosses, the line separating journalism from whole cloth story fabrication.
I would say they are doing a good job, I have noticed the difference, and now I find myself reading a variety of things verse three same story told 10 different ways and you have to pick through them all to get the facts if they exist.
I have no interest in paying for any news subscription service. While it's true that there's a lot of fake news out there when you choose free content; it doesn't really take much to debunk them. Just pay attention when the little alarm bells start to go off in your head, verify, and cross reference with other reputable sources.
There is no substitute for human curation of information. That Apple, a computer company, understands this is encouraging.
I subscribe directly to a handful of news sources. But lately, I've found myself gravitating to Apple News to keep in touch with other sources.
Thoughtful and informed curation is a welcome addition to this process. I'd much rather that than social media news 'curated' by algorithms tuned to the mindless clicks, retweets and shares of individuals in response to strong emotional stimuli without reflecting on the quality or accuracy of the content.
Apple's system incentivises journalists to do good work to win the exposure game rather than hijacking human cognition with sensationalist headlines.
Control (sorry, curation) of news and information is inevitably political. I don’t understand how anyone can dress it up as anything else. It doesn’t matter what your political persuasion is, if someone, whether human or an algorithm, is deciding what information is sent out, it is tainted.
So where do you get your news from? If all news is tainted, I assume you read everything and then make up your mind?
If that is the case, what sense does it make to delete the News app? Surely that is just another thing for you to read and make up your mind about?
I guess this is the reason why it is taking time to roll out to other countries. Apple needs to hire curators who are from the local media, which takes time.
Apple also needs to see what interest the local publications have in putting their news on Apple News. If the local publications are apathetic then it's a lost cause.
I have no desire to pay a subscription to see the world according to Apple's editorial department. I doubt that I am alone in my opinion.
You're certainly not alone in your opinion -- but you are pretty ignorant in it. You don't really have a clue what Apple News is or how it works, quite clearly.
FWIW I'm really enjoying using Apple News, and I find that it offers a well-rounded collection of news sources from across a spectrum of perspectives, with a very high signal-to-noise ratio (though, despite the curators' best efforts, there's some junk writing to be found -- and no, I'm not talking about political stuff).
It’s important to know what the MSM want us to believe and ignore them. A quick search of Udo Ulfkotte or Operation Mockingbird will convince anyone not affected by cognitive dissonance.
Apple started opening retail stores while everyone else scratched their heads and said the idea was doomed because everyone would want to buy stuff off the internet.
While machines are serving up crap instead of news, Apple goes in the opposite direction again.
Agreed Apple is right on this. The bigger problem for most 'news' is the humans who figure out (and always will) how to manipulate the algorithms.
There is no substitute for human curation of information. That Apple, a computer company, understands this is encouraging.
True, but what stops the human curators from being biased or gamed?
mac_dog said: When I need a news source, I simply tune in to “Democracy Now!” (democracynow.org). They have some amazing reporting, but the republicans & most of the establishment democrats are terrified of them and have pushed them to the fringe left. One still can’t deny the facts, tho.
It's hard to get much worse than the MSM these days. The 'news' from them is so distorted, biased, and fake, most sources (even if they have their own biases and issues) are better.
Other shops use algorithms solely because it's cheaper than paying humans. Unless (or until) AI advances to the level of adult intelligence, human-involvement will always be a necessity.
It just cracks me up when folks like Zuckerberg of Facebook talk about using AI for it's news feeds. It's pure BS.
So does Facebook, etc. They just use humans more on the other side of things... i.e.: filtering out the garbage to try and save their ad revenue. They employ thousands of people through 3rd party companies who are exposed to truly vile stuff. AI can't do it, and IMO, never will... if a human kind of intelligence is what is required to do it well (which I think it is).
I do not want Tim Cook or anyone else for that matter curating my news. There is simply no way to avoid bias or the appearance of bias.
This is not about news, it is about advertising and subscriptions. Tim seems hell-bent on pushing ads for profit and selling subscriptions to Apple's customers. Do not buy your music- rent it. Do not buy your newspapers- rent it and let us choose what you see. And while we are at it, Eddie Cue wants to show you his latest TV shows nobody wants to watch.
I have no interest in seeing ads placed by Apple on my Mac, iPad or iPhone. I have no desire to pay a subscription to see the world according to Apple's editorial department. I doubt that I am alone in my opinion.
Yeah, I think Apple's lack of involvement in these income streams is what has given us the products we love vs the Googles and Facebooks. The deeper Apple gets into this, the more it becomes like the rest. But, they'll unfortunately probably go there because they are now huge with department heads that see $$$.
kevin kee said: As opposed to receiving fake news, inaccuracies, inappropriate tabloid junkies headlines? No thanks. Human curation is and will be always necessary until AI improved.
What makes you think you're not getting all that stuff with human curation? NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, BBC, CNN, etc. aren't AI curated, yet are full of what you fear.
AI_lias said: There's a difference between news you don't like, and false reporting.
If these humans do some fact checking, also, to a certain extent, that's only helpful. And if Apple has the money to pay human curators, that's good, much better than computers. Think a human DJ vs. a computer mixed playlist, I guess. My only problem with this would be if somehow all news sources out there would be equated with each other, and given room, just because they are on the other side of the spectrum in relation to others. Because that would be false equivalency, and that is why it is important to let readers filter out any news source they do not like, or trust. And I mean, completely filter out certain sources, from anywhere in the News app.
Yeah, from this article, it sounds more like they are just picking what they think are the best representations of particular news stories... from news outlets that are junk to begin with. If you have fake news from 10 sources and just pick one of them, it's still fake news. If you pick biased news from 1 of 10 biased sources, it's still biased news.
Human curation won't help much with junk in, junk out.
AI_lias said: Any news organization will have false stories, but not many, and if pointed out, and verifiable, they retract and apologize, which I believe CNN and others you mention are doing (I've seen that they do it). So, maybe there were some mistakes made, but they are not vast, and not a constant stream of falsehoods. Just because their coverage is not slanted towards the favorable coverage of someone, does not mean it's false, or fake. I'd be more concerned of people peddling straight-up conspiracy theories, and people who associate themselves and appear on sites like InfoWars, and others like them, or straight up lie, to get people so tired of hearing it, that they start believing it. Nowadays the contest seems to be who can lie with more impunity and with a straight face more, where people get desensitized to it. So, in my opinion, we're so far gone in our echo chambers and bubbles, that the best you can do is fact-check things as much as possible, and let people filter out themselves what they don't like or trust.
Or, if you can't tell which ones are lying anymore? At least I know some of the stories on InfoWars are baloney or exaggerated or such (at least from my understanding... I don't follow them). But, I do know a lot of what is on the MSM is also baloney, yet too many people see them as at least somewhat trustable.
THAT is where the problem I see here. I don't think we should have people telling us what sources are trustable and which aren't. We're hopefully smart enough to figure that out on our own... and if not, then we're doomed anyway. So, I want education in critical thinking and logic, not content police!
Comments
Thoughtful and informed curation is a welcome addition to this process. I'd much rather that than social media news 'curated' by algorithms tuned to the mindless clicks, retweets and shares of individuals in response to strong emotional stimuli without reflecting on the quality or accuracy of the content.
Apple's system incentivises journalists to do good work to win the exposure game rather than hijacking human cognition with sensationalist headlines.
So where do you get your news from? If all news is tainted, I assume you read everything and then make up your mind?
If that is the case, what sense does it make to delete the News app? Surely that is just another thing for you to read and make up your mind about?
I guess this is the reason why it is taking time to roll out to other countries. Apple needs to hire curators who are from the local media, which takes time.
Apple also needs to see what interest the local publications have in putting their news on Apple News. If the local publications are apathetic then it's a lost cause.
It's hard to get much worse than the MSM these days. The 'news' from them is so distorted, biased, and fake, most sources (even if they have their own biases and issues) are better.
So does Facebook, etc. They just use humans more on the other side of things... i.e.: filtering out the garbage to try and save their ad revenue. They employ thousands of people through 3rd party companies who are exposed to truly vile stuff. AI can't do it, and IMO, never will... if a human kind of intelligence is what is required to do it well (which I think it is).
Yeah, I think Apple's lack of involvement in these income streams is what has given us the products we love vs the Googles and Facebooks. The deeper Apple gets into this, the more it becomes like the rest. But, they'll unfortunately probably go there because they are now huge with department heads that see $$$.
What makes you think you're not getting all that stuff with human curation? NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, BBC, CNN, etc. aren't AI curated, yet are full of what you fear.
Yeah, from this article, it sounds more like they are just picking what they think are the best representations of particular news stories... from news outlets that are junk to begin with. If you have fake news from 10 sources and just pick one of them, it's still fake news. If you pick biased news from 1 of 10 biased sources, it's still biased news.
Human curation won't help much with junk in, junk out.
Or, if you can't tell which ones are lying anymore? At least I know some of the stories on InfoWars are baloney or exaggerated or such (at least from my understanding... I don't follow them). But, I do know a lot of what is on the MSM is also baloney, yet too many people see them as at least somewhat trustable.
THAT is where the problem I see here. I don't think we should have people telling us what sources are trustable and which aren't. We're hopefully smart enough to figure that out on our own... and if not, then we're doomed anyway. So, I want education in critical thinking and logic, not content police!