Skip to first unread message
Vince Koloski
Jan 15, 2019, 8:20:13 PM1/15/19
to Ipse Dixit
Interesting article from the Guardian about the way the larger mainstream media platforms craft their reporting about artificial intelligence.
They use a Reuters Institute study on the UK media as the basis of the article but also include links to the total Reuters study and to another report by the Royal Society about Constitutional Democracy in the age of Artificial Intelligence.
One of the more disturbing facts they report is that 60% of AI articles used sources primarily from industry regarding new products and initiatives. Academic Sources and Government made up some 32% and only 4% were from Civil Society sources. To quote the article "Critically, AI products were often portrayed as relevant and competent solutions to a range of public problems. Journalists rarely questioned whether AI was likely to be the best answer to these problems, nor did they acknowledge debates about the technology’s public effects."
While interesting enough regarding this issue, it seems that in the age of shrinking media platform budgets and the 15 minute news cycle, this seems to be increasingly the case with other news subjects as well. There seems to be a greater reliance on corporate press releases, government position papers and leaks, and pressure group releases without much questioning of the information presented either at a surface or in-depth level. The recent Guardian article about the purported Manafort-Assange meetings is only one recent example.
Getting back to the AI reporting and general discussion of AI related material, the Royal Society study is a fascinating look at the kinds of actions might be needed to ensure that AI is employed for the public good.
jack saunders
Jan 16, 2019, 1:53:01 AM1/16/19
to Vince Koloski, Ipse Dixit
Vince points out that reporters systematically find two classes of source experts preferable to others. So the question is why. More readily available to deadline-addled writers? More authoritative seeming to editors/readers? I doubt any payola is going on. More likely Civil Society sources are not seen to be helpful to journalists’ goals. Old newsroom adage: “Many a good story has been ruined by over-verification.”
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Ipse-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Ipse-dixit.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/bbe631c3-cade-41d3-a1e2-976d1cc110e1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Larry Rosenthal
Jan 16, 2019, 3:24:54 PM1/16/19
to Vince Koloski, Ipse Dixit
Yep, a lot of intelligence about artificial intelligence is, unironically, artificial!
LR
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Ipse-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Ipse-dixit.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/bbe631c3-cade-41d3-a1e2-976d1cc110e1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages