Google's Experimental Newsroom Avoids Negative Headlines 109
theodp writes: After Brazil's dramatic World Cup defeat by Germany, writes NPR's Aarti Shahani, Google's experimental newsroom focused on search trends that didn't rub salt in Brazil's wounds, choosing to not publish a single trend on Brazilian search terms. Copywriter Tessa Hewson said they were just too negative. "We might try and wait until we can do a slightly more upbeat trend." It's a decision that puzzles Shahani, but producer Sam Clohesy explained, "a negative story about Brazil won't necessarily get a lot of traction in social." In old-school newsrooms, if it bleeds, it leads. But because this new newsroom is focused on getting content onto everyone's smartphone, marketing expert Rakesh Agrawal says, editors may have another bias: to comb through the big data in search of happy thoughts.
sounds like North Korea news (Score:5, Funny)
we say bad stuff only when it makes us look good.
Re:sounds like North Korea news (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than that. It's like Brave New World news. The only things fit to publish are the things that keep us happy(and thus amendable to advertisements in this case). It's not trying to make on specific entity look good, it's trying to engage in actual mind control via selection bias.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Yeah, this is basically exactly the same issue as the FB "experiment" snafu a while back.
We might try and wait until we can do a slightly more upbeat trend.
I thought a tend is supposed to be some overall direction in what is actually happening in the real world. Not what we would like to be happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly new. Slashdot frequently runs doom-is-nigh, overblown, click-baity summaries for the purposes of drawing in viewers (and thus, revenue). All those stupid social sites use vague headlines ending with "...you won't believe what happens next!" to try and intrigue viewers for the same reason. Calling it "mind control" is setting the bar pretty low.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, that's absolutely an attempt at large-scale mental manipulation as well.
Too soon? (Score:2)
I'm also surprised everyone still hates Germany this much and considers that match a defeat rather than a victory.
Too soon?
Re: (Score:2)
Friend google has prescribed me 3 doses of happy happy to be taken at the nearest confession booth.
Re: (Score:2)
All advertising supported news runs the risk of turning into "content;" that is, of existing primarily as a circus attraction to get an audience into the advertisers' tent.
In the distant past, professional integrity enabled journalists to get actual news into newspapers. Perhaps that was because the people who chose to devote their lives to journalism, even the editors and publishers, were interested in contributing to society by acting as its eyes, its ears and, on occasion, its conscience. That's always
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a cite [tandfonline.com]
Now, while happiness does help us catch lies in advertising, we're also more likely to react positively to advertising in general when we're happy. Thus google's mission should be to make people happy at the expense of news quality, since they're in the advertising business.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, this might actually end up giving a more accurate picture of the world, because disasters and scandals tend to be big and flashy, while good news come as constant stream of small things. Overall, the stream drowns o
Re:sounds like North Korea news (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the problem:
Bad news is more interesting than good news. When people hear bad news it is a call to action that something needs to be done to stop it. Good news means you should just continue on and do what you have been doing.
Now we get flooded with Bad News and that makes news junkies become paranoid and thinking the world is about to end, and this over extradition of the problem will cause them to try to do drastic action to try to fix it. Tea Party, Occupy Movement, Radical groups.
Countries like China and North Korea, tries to give a bunch of good news, as a way to pacify the public. There is no interest in roping people in to watch the news every hour. So they do good news, to try to keep people passive and do what they already do. Ignoring real issues that are going on, causing the culture to stagnate.
We really need a happy middle. Where we know what important is going on, without it seeming like the End of the World.
Re:sounds like North Korea news (Score:4, Insightful)
How about instead of trying to spin it one way or the other, try publishing the facts. No real news entity should be spinning stories, but they obviously do in order to pull in a larger audience, or deliver their agenda (Fox, MSN).
I'm really tired of these crappy stories that I see on local news meant to scare folks, or pull at their heartstrings. They really misguide peoples perceptions of reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
News stations use to be required by law to state just the facts and give both sides of the story if I remember right.
Uh-huh. And now (well, for some time already) we have courts agreeing with Fox et al that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
link [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides what are facts? Who decides what the 2 sides are? The government? If there ever was such a law it must have been enforced really badly at least during my lifetime (I am 54). I have always seen huge bias in news from any source. The difference that's happened over the last 20 years or so is that commentators have started to state their bias up front. I believe that is way more honest because you know what you are getting and can weight the information accordingly. The fact is that anything that c
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of trying to spin it one way or the other, try publishing the facts.
There are an overwhelming number of facts generated every day, and no way to know what is the most important (indeed, what is important to one person is unimportant to another). A news organization thus has to choose which facts to publish, and that is where the bias comes in (inevitably!): the news corporation chooses which facts to show, over other ones. They might choose to show facts that make you want to go to war, hide the facts that show why it's a bad idea, and all they are doing is publishing the f
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of trying to spin it one way or the other, try publishing the facts.
As another poster already said, there are billions of "facts" generated every day. A news organization has to choose to emphasize some or others -- there's certainly enough stuff going on in the world to generate an entirely "positive" newspaper every day or an entirely "negative" one.
No real news entity should be spinning stories, but they obviously do in order to pull in a larger audience, or deliver their agenda (Fox, MSN).
That is the ENTIRE point of most news organizations. Contrary to popular belief, there never was some sort of "golden age" where news sources ever just "reported the news." Newspapers and magazines have always mostly been t
Re: (Score:2)
The facts of what? "Intoxicated man takes a taxi, family of four gets home safe and sound"?
Re: (Score:3)
In that case:
Bad News! Google to stop showing bad news!
In a terrible decision that requires a call-to-arms, Google has decided to censor anything bad. Stop everything you are doing and take to the streets while coordinating through social media, and let your voices and/or rioting be heard! Only when Google mentions the protests in their news feed will can claim success!
Re: (Score:2)
One heartwarming kitten per murder, check.
"Heartwarming kitten found murdered -- Film at 11"
Won't Somebody Think of the Neurotics! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4chan does a pretty good job of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the usual diet of bad stuff happening what will they use to feed their various fears and neuroses?
Well there seems to be no dearth of global warming fearmongering, so there's that. Oh, and TERRORISM!!!>>
and in other happy news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Because Nothing Bad Ever Happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want upbeat headlines. I want the news.
That will include good and bad headlines.
This sounds like a stupid idea, only tell people the upbeat things and let them live in blissful ignorance of what's actually happening in the world. The world doesn't work like that.
What next, not telling us when governments misbehave, or when some atrocity happens so we don't all get sad?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, hold on, I'll get you a link to Pornhub where you can see Brazil getting fucked by Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ... not the kind of headlines I was looking for.
News for Nerds. Porn that Matters.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no no. They got waxed.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you want the news? Then this may be a more correct delivery than other news media.
Traditional media tend to skip happy news (or do some short notices) while promoting violence, crimes etc. as the top news.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want them to pick only the negative stuff. I don't want them to bias towards the happy stuff.
I want to know what is actually happening, not what some editor thinks I want to know is happening, or stories which will increase ad revenue.
I will evaluate good and bad on my own.
Same as Facebook (Score:3)
I included the word "doom" in a post and it did not go to the newsfeed. Changed the word and then it goes. Nazis would be thrilled to see this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I included the word "doom" in a post and it did not go to the newsfeed. Changed the word and then it goes. Nazis would be thrilled to see this.
If you are so keen on raging, try to talk about quakes.
Re: (Score:2)
One must ask, what good is news that filters?
And to understand the answer, one must consider the vantage point from which those who filter the news are viewing the world.
It's up there.
Less-than-poetic version:
Dude, think about who is doing the filtering - people with power. Once you realize that, it's easy to see what "good" they feel will come from the practice - keeping the proles fat, blind, and complacent.
Re: (Score:1)
One must ask, what good is news that filters?
All news is filtered. You wouldn't have time to digest every single piece of information generated every day. The question is, what is your news filtered by? I don't see how "upbeat" is any worse than "political", "tech", "sport", or "local".
someone chose, wrote the story. What changed was (Score:4, Interesting)
> I remember a time when the news was reported and read. Nothing more nothing less. How people accepted the news was left up to the viewer, reader, or listener. Now we have flavored news,
In those happy times, an editor decided which stories he wanted to assign reporters to. Before "the news was read", someone wrote it, and the author had their biases. If you look at the news stories from many years ago covering two different politicians doing the same thing, you'll find the stories read quite differently depending on which party the politician was associated with.
The newspapers and television stations of yesteryear were just as interested in selling ads as today's are. I think the biggest difference is the level of honesty. Sean Hannity will TELL you that he's a conservative. Peter Jennings and Dan Rather pretended to be objective.
Re: (Score:2)
The newspapers and television stations of yesteryear were just as interested in selling ads as today's are.
This is the most important point. Everyone on Slashdot always chimes in and says things like "You're not really Facebook's customer -- the companies who want your information and want to run ads are," but people seem to forget that this has been true for a lot of things for a LONG time.
The "news" has rarely been about conveying unbiased facts -- it's about selling a product. And before ad revenue was so important, most newspapers were even more sensationalist, since they depended solely on news boys pit
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible for there to be any other kind. The sum total of what happens on the earth is far beyond the ability of anyone or anything to track or follow. Most of it is not relevant to you, of course. Any news you read is, and of necessity, must be, filtered. The only question is how it is filtered.
Your view that occurances can be easily and definitively defined as "news" or "not news" is incredibly naive.
Deja Vu? (Score:2)
I seem to recall reading about a similar trend back in the 40's. Took quite a few "wins" over various countries until the aggressors were called on it. Wasn't quite sports related, mind you.
they think they know better (Score:1)
We don't understand this because we are too stupid. We are hicks. We don't have the same respect they do for polishing and smoke being blown in our faces. We don't understand how the 4th estate should be running the world.
Censorship Alive and Well.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed [abstrusegoose.com].
These people (Score:1)
For one, you don't edit the news. You relay the facts as is.
If you want to have your audience read about your opinions, you clearly mark that an "Editorial" and then go crazy on your side of things.
Future newsreaders don't need a platform that's gonna censor the news they receive. Google would take a big PR hit from this. think it through.
Sergey Brin said his vision was to "make information come to the people" That's kinda what you're trying to
Re: (Score:2)
They did. The relayed fact was both correct and relevant. All this noise is about choosing one fact over the other when both could not be picked.
Why tell people what they need to hear? (Score:2)
Why can’t we tell them what they want to hear?
Anchorman 3: The Legend Goes Webscale
Re: (Score:2)
Orwellian (Score:2)
Frankly, I have to say that this is even more Orwellian and pernicious than government-backed spying.
The idea that an ostensibly-objective source in the private sector - simply by the good fortune of it's overwhelming market power - can ensure that we all have happythink by subtly 'managing' the news feeds... is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the new media control overlords. It used to be we had filters like News Editors, TV Anchors etc. who had a set of principles and presented the news based on those principles. Of course individuals like William Randolph Hurst realized how powerful this was and fashioned and tailored the news to their own agendas. This gave their already immense power even more capabilities to shape the dialog and issues of the day. Google, Huffington Post et al. are all in the same business and both actually don't g
Best Source Of Real News I've Found So far (Score:4, Informative)
Each day they bring a new map with news from around the world. Succinct news, showing where it is geographically, with actual figures and no other bullshit. Granted, it's nearly all bad news...but I've learned so much about events around the world that the major news outlets don't cover (too much time covering important things like Brazil Exploitation Theatre or the latest breaking news out of Hollywood).
Thine linken: http://ercportal.jrc.ec.europa... [europa.eu]
Coincidentally, their map today is of that very same Ebola outbreak. Things are not looking good.
Stupid and misguided AT BEST (Score:2)
Filter bubble (Score:2)
The filter bubble is bringing 1984 to realization in ways that no one ever imagined.
Newsroom? (Score:2)
They seem to be talking about Google Trends [google.com], where they are currently making cutesy graphs of what people are searching for about the World Cup.
Calling this a "newsroom" seems to be a bit of a stretch. This is NOT "Google News" where I see "humiliation", "shame" and "misery" in the top stories when searching for "Brazil World Cup" [google.com].
This had me really confused (and it seems like many of the readers here as well), but the article and summary are misleading.
Who decides what is happy (Score:2)
So it might make me happy to know some bad news, like my Bank just got hacked.This is nothing but trying to put a happy face on censorship. I hate "search trends" reports and articles. I wish they would factually publish that actual trends with no filtering. that would be truly interesting. I am sure this has never been done. If the trends have been real in the past then it really proves how stupid most people are. It normally appears to be as pop fluff and the same stuff the MSM is pushing as issues of the
Bullshit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Because the honest and straight-shooting New York Times and MSNBC would publish — indeed, revel in — every piece of bad news...
As long a Republican can be blamed for it — justly or otherwise — of course...
Iraq, for example, was a "quagmire" in 2003 [nytimes.com] — when the enemy was defeated and on the run. And so it was in 2006 [nytimes.com], when only minor insurrections remained. But it is not a quagmire today — with the enemy having recaptured vast swaths of
The ball is small and it's got this: "$" on it ... (Score:1)
Google's prime directive is to make money.
There's the answer to today's question.
Those who don't understand and embrace that first sentence may well start babbling about free speech, 4th estate, bias, or any number of equally irrelevant issues having nothing to do with Google's business model.
Google does not owe anyone the "news," any more than does the news entertainment venues like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the likes.
If you're interested in news in the traditional sense, good luck and please remember wher
Could YOU resist? (Score:2)
For centuries researchers have lamented the difficulty in studying society and accurately running social experiments. Now for the first time in human history companies such as Google and Facebook have a real window into how ideas and emotion spread. They can see the relationships between philosophy, religion, gender and culture in how they define our dealings with each other.
I disagree with what they're doing and how they're doing it. Yet I pause and think to myself... In the same position, could I resist t
Because saying the truth is being a "negativist" (Score:2)
What is this, life -- or 2nd grade?
It seems outright condescending to try to make it all happy news. People die. Things break. Teams lose. Wars happen. DEAL WITH IT! Don't hide it!
Personalization - another enemy of democracy. (Score:2)
Life is 2nd grade. Or perhaps "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten"?
Adults are merely conditioned and learn to ACT "mature," under the masks and habits we are all children... Psychology focuses so much on childhood for good reason.
Humans will avoid negative stimulation; it's natural behavior. If you have too much freedom and always have positive options you will avoid negative things ALL THE TIME. This will result in a lack of contrast which is necessary for your mind to function since jus
As the saying goes, no news is good news (Score:1)
Now, thanks to Google, bad news is no news! But, as no news is good news, we could conclude that bad news is good news. Is this good, bad or newsworthy?