Soon, the next great news story you read may not be written by an actual journalist. Or even a human being, for that matter. Instead, one day you might read important news content written by artificial intelligence programs that exceed your average journalist’s capabilities. What’s scary? You might not even know it.
Natural language processing, or NLP, is an AI discipline focused on understanding human speech and cognition. More recent developments now allow for computers to take over much of the work that humans do. Specifically, writing.
Recently a college student created an entirely fake blog post using GPT-3, OpenAI’s machine learning language model, creating a buzz in the data science community.
The blog post quickly hit the top of Hacker News, and signaled a tipping point in the so-called “Turing Test”, where machines are capable of outsmarting people in various human interactions such as imitation games, chess, and chat bot interactions.
This technological advancement in NLP has the potential to write just about anything. This includes writing code and blog posts alike, deflating high-demand jobs by providing synthetic news stories, social media content, powering chat bots and spun website content, a form of re-purposing text from others and changing it just enough to pass for original content.
This is a disaster for anyone who makes their living programming code, marketing copywriters, journalists and an untold number of white collar professionals. Humans may no longer be the gatekeeper when it comes to writing intelligent copy that everyday people can understand. In fact all signs point to AI exceeding journalists’ capacity to quickly tell concise, fact-driven stories in the next five years.
While there is speculation about using GPT-3 to replace journalists and creating whole newspapers by itself, some have questioned OpenAI’s decision to restrict who has access to the GPT-3 technology.
In the next decade, we are going to see this and similar technologies changing not only the way we access the internet but also how we consume news media itself.
The 1619 Project is an ongoing project started in 2019 by The New York Times Magazine with the goal to “reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of [the Unites States’] national narrative.”
There’s been much criticism and debate among well-known and highly respected historians. They have expressed “strong reservations” about the project and the fact that the recommended factual corrections have not been taken into strong consideration or implemented. Some historians and political commentators have accused the publisher and the journalists and researchers who worked on the project of putting ideology before historical understanding.
Given that there’s been a backlash to the project, especially by prominent conservative voices on cable television, elected officials, and academia, we decided to look at online news stories covering the project over the previous 90-day period. With over 80 stories published in this timeframe, one of the immediate things that stood out were three discernible spikes in coverage. The first occurred on July 23rd, the second on July 27th, and the last on September 6th.
The first spike on July 23rd came as a result of Senator Tom Cotton introducing a bill to prohibit federal funds from being sent to any school district using ‘1619 Project’ curriculum. On July 27th, the second spike was a direct result of comments he made about slavery being a “necessary evil,” per the Founding Fathers of America. Here is the full statement he made to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
“We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the founding fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.”
Cotton distanced himself from those comments on Twitter and in interviews immediately following the backlash but still held firm he was expressing the views of the Founding Fathers.
More lies from the debunked 1619 Project.
Describing the *views of the Founders* and how they put the evil institution on a path to extinction, a point frequently made by Lincoln, is not endorsing or justifying slavery.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the landmark 1619 Project, responded to Cotton on Twitter with this.
You said, quote: “As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.” That “as” denotes agreement. Further, if by path to extinction you mean growing the enslaved poP from 500k to 4 million at Civil War, a war fought over slavery, then, ok. https://t.co/22c94wWhni
Cotton’s effort to defund school districts where ‘1619 Project’ curriculum is being taught, coupled with his comments and assuming the views of the Founding Fathers, helped propel this story into national headlines for several days. Things began to quiet down, at least in the news cycle, until September 6th, when President Trump announced the Department of Education would be ‘looking at’ 1619 Project implementation in schools nationwide and openly threatened to defund schools teaching it. Trump singled out California specifically and dismissed the project as merely ‘revisionist history.’
Department of Education is looking at this. If so, they will not be funded! https://t.co/dHsw6Y6Y3M
Fast-forward to September 17th, and we are likely on the upswing of witnessing another spike in online coverage of this issue again now that the President has announced executive action on creating a commission to promote “patriotic education” as well as a grant to develop “pro-American curriculum” in schools. Critics have already slammed the decision saying it sounds eerily familiar to state-run education the likes of North Korea and Nazi Germany.
While highlighting how online news publishers cover a divisive topic such as this, it’s also important to point out just how significant a small number of news publishers can influence public perception or sentiment one way or the other.
Sixty online news publishers wrote at least one story covering this topic in the previous 90-days, per the Konsume news engine, and 26% of all stories published came from the top six. That means that just 10% of online news publishers covering this topic accounted for over a quarter of the coverage related to the 1619 Project.
This helps highlight how a handful of news publishers can dominate the news coverage on a particular topic to skew reporting or perception on a specific issue or set of issues.
Check out the news coverage for The 1619 Project here. You can also search for related topics using our search tool.
It’s official. Jim Carrey, who is known for his wacky brand of comedy and impressive range as an actor, is in agreement to join Saturday Night Live. He’ll be taking on the role of Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden.
SNL producer Lorne Michaels told Vulture that Carrey actually asked to play the role.
“There was some interest on his part. And then we responded, obviously, positively. But it came down to discussions about what the take was,” Michaels said, adding that Carrey will give the Biden role “energy” and “strength.”
The announcement naturally increased Carrey’s presence in the news as news stories about the actor spiked on September 16. Before the announcement, you can see that Carrey wasn’t covered by online news publishers quite as much.
Before the coverage spike, these are the news headlines associated with the actor.
As you can see, Carrey’s major focus has been on politics and current events which isn’t getting quite as much news coverage as his acting and entertainment endeavors. If you’d like to take a closer look at how online news publishers have been covering Carrey you can check out his profile page.
Jean Carroll is a former renowned advice columnist for Elle who alleges then private citizen Donald Trump raped her in the mid-’90s. The statute of limitations has since passed so the president can’t have criminal charges brought against him for the alleged rape, but Carroll is suing him for defamation. The President denied having ever met Carroll and subsequently claims he did not sexually assault her while questioning her motives and character.
In her fight with Trump, Carroll has since been fired from Elle and been subjected to countless threats against her online.
Before this week, Carroll received previous news coverage from digital publishers in August when a judge ruled that her defamation suit against Trump could continue. Fast-forward to this week and the Department of Justice is stepping in to potentially represent the president and have the case end up as Carroll vs The United States, as opposed to Carroll vs Donald Trump.
More than 30 digital news publishers have covered this story since August. Here’s a visualization of the headlines written by those publishers and journalists.
As you can tell just from the headlines the overwhelming focus on the story and case itself is the bombshell that the Department of Justice is attempting to take over the case. Let’s highlight the publishers and headlines that deviate from the typical “Trump can’t stop lawsuit..” focus in August and the “DOJ defending Trump..” approach now in September.
The overall content of this story isn’t much different than what was published by every other digital publisher reviewed. However, it does offer up the perspective and response from Carroll and her legal team which helps bring another element to a fairly straight forward story at the time.
This publication chose to do a human interest story on Carroll in an effort to educate the public and readers on who this person actually is. Carroll’s backstory, personal and professional life are highlighted as are the allegations she has brought against the President when he was a private citizen.
Newsweek published two stories detailing the lawsuit against Trump. One is focused on Carroll’s ‘take on the world’ mentality upon learning the DOJ is trying to intervene to defend the President. The Independent also took a similar approach.
The other story published has a headline that tells you everything you need to know right from the jump – which is if the DOJ successfully defends Trump it will be taxpayers footing the bill. Of the 30+ publishers reviewed in our data, they are the only one to focus on the impact this will have on taxpayers with the DOJ now trying to get involved.
If you would like to explore the publishers and journalists covering this ongoing lawsuit and related stories, you can find the data here.
Are you interested in discovering more about what digital news publishers and journalists are covering and how they are covering it? Konsume makes it easy to uncover key news media insights and perform meaningful data analysis. Register for a free account and try the tool for yourself and download the data. Follow us on Twitter @KonsumeHQ.
President Trump dominated the August news cycle in politics, which should come as no surprise. However, it included coverage of the Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden and his pick for Vice President Kamala Harris. Plus, Kanye West also remained in the headlines for his faux presidential run announcement/very public mental health crisis.
Aside from Trump, it should come as no surprise that Biden and Harris are the two most heavily covered politicians in our data. We are in an election year – one that feels as if it is the single most crucial election for a president in a generation or two. Then again, it could also just ‘feel’ that way because a large part of the electorate now is made up of millions and millions of younger voters who are just now eligible to vote, or they cast their first ballots in 2008 or 2016.
Stories about the President make up nearly 40% of news coverage among our top ‘five’ topics. Biden and Harris combine to take a 45% share of coverage, and the two will likely gain news coverage hand-in-hand going forward.
Who’s Covering President Trump?
This chart represents digital news publishers that covered Trump for both terms in our initial pie chart. As you can see, Politico does not rely on an abundance of volume to reach its readers. Instead, it focuses on the quality and depth of reporting in their coverage, represented by the average social reach of each published article and the average word count of those stories. While the number of words in a news story does not necessarily correlate to a story that’s of higher quality, because flow and tone matter, you at least get a sense of how digital pubs and journalists on staff approach covering Trump and feature stories in general.
Joe Biden has been a ‘darling’ of Breitbart news coverage for some time, but especially so once it was expected he would be the Democratic nominee for President. Their coverage leans heavy to the right, and Breitbart staff’s news stories focus on casting Biden in a negative light.
Coverage from the other news publishers, aside from the Daily Caller, has been keenly focused on Biden’s VP search leading up to selecting Kamala Harris, and his speech at the Democratic convention.
Harris has attracted a lot of news coverage from right-leaning digital news outlets for some time now. She was the target of Russian hoaxers who pretended to be Greta Thunberg’s father. A story the DailyMail covered in great detail, along with publishing the transcript of the call itself. That accounts for the inflated average word count seen from them.
Many headlines from other leading publishers covering Harris centered around her not being a good VP pick for Biden. Others focused on the assumption she would be rejected by younger voters and an assortment of other attacks on her record as a former prosecutor, senator, and character. For certain left-leaning outlets such as The Hill, the concern is Harris is not ‘liberal enough’ for voters.
Are you interested in discovering more about what digital news publishers and journalists are covering and how they are covering it? Konsume makes it easy to uncover key news media insights and perform meaningful data analysis. Register for a free account and try the tool for yourself and download the data. Follow us on Twitter @KonsumeHQ.
The University of South Carolina has had over 600 students test positive for the coronavirus since August 20th. This past weekend a pool party was brought to a screeching halt when the fire department arrived to find hundreds of students at a pool near the university. Per Fire Chief Aubrey Jenkins, “It was almost like Mardi Gras.” There were students in the pool, on the deck and even on top of the pool house. Even without a global pandemic going on “there still would have been too many people in the pool,” said Jenkins.
The NYPD has arrested Jose Reyes, 31, for the attempted rape of a woman waiting for the Q train in NYC. A bystander saw the attack and rushed to stop it, while simultaneously filming the encounter. The NYPD used facial recognition software to identify the culprit, who has multiple other charges on file. None of the other charges are sex related, but at least three of them take place within the New York City public transport system. The victim sustained mild injuries but refused hospital care.
No one knew who Kyle Rittenhouse was before he showed up to the Kenosha protests armed with an AR-15 and used it to shoot three people, killing two of them. He has since been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, one count of first-degree reckless homicide, one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The most serious of these crimes in Wisconsin is first-degree intentional homicide if convicted. Rittenhouse would face a mandatory life sentence if convicted.
(Warning, Graphic/Violent)
A crowd chases a suspected shooter down in Kenosha. He trips and falls, then turns with the gun and fires several times. Shots can be heard fired elsewhere as well, corroborating reports of multiple shooters tonight #Kenosha#KenoshaRiotspic.twitter.com/qqsYWmngFW
Over 130 stories have been published by digital news publishers since video and eyewitness accounts of what took place were made public. While opinions and conjecture about Rittenhouse’s actions have largely been shared on social media and cable news networks (the term ‘vigilante’ is getting thrown around), online news publishers are also getting into the fray. Some are sticking to headlines and reporting based on the facts known at the time, while others are peppering in subtle (and not so subtle) bias in describing Rittenhouse, his victims, and the killings themselves.
Here are a Variety of Headlines from Online News Publishers:
Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse said “I just killed somebody” on phone call after first shooting, documents say – nydailynews.com
Kenosha protestor killed by Kyle Rittenhouse remembered as a “peaceful person” – nypost.com
Aubrey Huff called Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse a “national treasure” – nypost.com
17-Year-Old “Blue Lives Matter” Fanatic Charged With Murder at Kenosha Protest
– thedailybeast.com
Teen Vigilante Killed Unarmed Kenosha Protestor Who Threw a Plastic Bag at Him
– thedailybeast.com
What we know so far about Kyle Rittenhouse, accused vigilante in Wisconsin shooting
– cleveland.com
GoFundMe Removes Fundraisers for Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse
– theepochtimes.com
Attorneys for Teen Accused of Kenosha Killings Establish Legal Defense Fund
– theepochtimes.com
Readers can get a reasonably quick understanding of the angle these news publishers are taking as more details about the incident become known. Some are sticking to the facts and nothing else in their headlines and reporting. Others are taking a more sensational or inflammatory approach by supporting the notion Rittenhouse did the world a favor because one of the men he killed has a criminal history that includes being a convicted sex offender and had an open criminal case for battery, disorderly conduct, and other domestic abuse charges in Wisconsin.
The other victim, Anthony Huber, had been arrested multiple times on battery and drug charges.
Whether the men Rittenhouse killed were good, bad, or somewhere in the middle as human beings should not merit justification for the actions of someone who would not have known that at the moment. Yet, the beat of the drum provoking extreme reactions from supporters of the victims and the shooter continues in the way information is being packaged and presented to the general public on all platforms.
It’s more important than ever to be aware of the information we are being served by news outlets and those posing as one, or the very least pretending to be a credible source of information.
For example, the term “vigilante” is used to describe Rittenhouse in 17 (and counting) different headlines. There are a dozen (and counting) other stories with a headline citing “self-defense” before any trial has gotten underway. Those terms account for just over 20 percent of the news coverage online in just under a week.
With those two terms alone being used to describe Rittenhouse or express some absolute knowledge and awareness of his intentions, it lends credence to the thought that this 17-year-old was justified in his actions, that vigilantism by white males is acceptable under the right circumstances, and could ultimately embolden others who have fantasies of doing the same. Especially when you have images and videos showing white police officers being mostly indifferent to Rittenhouse wandering around with an assault rifle before and after the shootings. It seems lost on some that the officers shown on video and in pictures of ignoring him as he passed by had no reason to apprehend him in that moment because they were, reportedly, unaware of his actions.
When stories published about a situation such as this seek to make up others’ minds instead of simply providing factual information, it does a disservice to that community and anyone else trying to understand what’s actually happening versus the narratives being pushed based on specific political or ideological agendas.
According to more those with more liberal political views, Rittenhouse is portrayed as a ‘Blue Lives Matter’ fanatic and likely white nationalist who traveled across state lines to confront protestors with a gun he was not legally allowed to possess. Those on the more conservative and alt-right political spectrum have immediately justified what Rittenhouse did, saying it was self-defense, or how no one should be surprised a vigilante would rise to protect a city that is being run into the ground by Democrats.
What about the bias of online news publishers?
Data based on publicly available data of published stories within the Konsume News Engine and third-party media bias site MediaBiasFactCheck.com.
In somewhat disappointing fashion, just 13 percent of audited digital news coverage can be categorized as neutral or lacking in obvious bias. The percentage of news stories published that promote propaganda, conspiracy theories, or extreme ideological views nearly match that, accounting for 12 percent of coverage. Half of the news publishers covering the story have a Left or Left-of-Center bias in their reporting, and 25 percent have a Right or Right-of-Center bias.
The real issue here is the impact the intentionally misleading or extreme right-wing stories are having on the story’s overall narrative. Eschewing facts and verified information for false claims or ideologically driven narratives causes distrust among news consumers. Even more so as those sensationalized stories quickly make the rounds on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
How information is packaged and presented to us has a far more significant impact on our perception of that news than we sometimes realize. Because, even with a small portion of news stories being intentionally misleading or inciting a strong, adverse reaction for all the wrong reasons, there is not enough fact-based neutral and fair coverage to combat it.
A 25-year-old Nevada man first showed symptoms of the coronavirus in April. He complained of a sore throat and headache, testing positive for the coronavirus. A few weeks later his symptoms resolved and he had two negative tests for the virus in May. In early June his symptoms returned, this time including fever and dizziness. He was hospitalized on June 5th and tested positive for the coronavirus. He was confirmed to have antibodies, and researchers state that he was not immunosuppressed, nor was he taking any immunosuppressive medications. This is the first confirmed case of reinfection in the United States.
The second and third cases of West Nile Virus in Massachusetts have been discovered. The two men, one in his 50’s and the other in his 80’s, live in Middlesex county. West Nile Virus is usually spread through mosquito bites, with the infected showing few to no symptoms, and this appears to be the case here as well. Mosquitoes in Middlesex, Essex, and Norfolk counties have tested positive for the virus. Last year five cases were identified, but in general health authorities say that the risk of becoming infected with the virus is low.
Soon, the next great news story you read may not be written by an actual journalist. Or even a human being, for that matter. Instead, one day you might read important news content written by artificial intelligence programs that exceed your average journalist’s capabilities. What’s scary? You might not even know it.
Aside from Trump, it should come as no surprise that Biden and Harris are the two most heavily covered politicians in our data. We are in an election year – one that feels as if it is the single most crucial election for a president in a generation or two. Then again, it could also just ‘feel’ that way because a large part of the electorate now is made up of millions and millions of younger voters who are just now eligible to vote, or they cast their first ballots in 2008 or 2016.
