 |
|
In his article "This MS Antitrust story was created by a computer program", Andrew Orlowski raises the age-old question, 'How do you know that what you are experiencing is really real?'
As the information infrastructure that supports the creation of new(s) ideas becomes increasingly smarter and more automated, are we moving nearer to the end of journalism?
Who owns an auto-generated news article anyway?
Posted by Ethan Eismann at November 15, 2002 07:16 AMRegarding the automatic generation of news, and especially as a response to the article about the future of Journalism, there is a steadily rising demand for reputation systems.
This would enable humans to rate news sources, which again would enable not only news bots but other humans to make a more informed choice as to which sources they trust.
To me, the question is not about journalism becoming replaced with automatic AI-funky things, but about the chaning role of a Journalist as an information broker, and as the middleman between me and the information overloaded world out there.
If you look at the storys generated in the Register rant, they are all just fact and PR news blurbs. No opinion or editorial pieces. For that kind of commentary you still need a human.
And that may not be the only factor speeking for Journalism in the Future.
Links to reputation managment system stuff:
Kevin Burton (peerfear.org) is very active in this area and with his NewsMonster RSS Aggregator he is planing to introduce a first version of reputation managment in the very near future.
He allready made some code, but that project of him seems to have been abandoned. But there are a few white papers at sierra.openprivacy.org
Google News was apparently done by a solo engineer. And they want to be a part of Journalism's future.
Posted by: Mary Hodder on November 15, 2002 11:41 PM