skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Algorithmic Journalism and Its Impacts on Work
In the artificial intelligence era, algorithmic journalists can produce news reports in natural language from structured data thanks to natural language generation (NLG) algorithms. This paper presents several algorithmic content generation models and discusses the impacts of algorithmic journalism on work within a framework consisting of three levels: replacing tasks of journalists, increasing efficiency, and developing new capabilities within journalism. The findings indicate that algorithmic journalism technology may lead some changes in journalism by enabling individual users to produce their own stories. This paper may contribute to an understanding of how algorithmic news is created and how algorithmic journalism technology impacts work.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2026583
NSF-PAR ID:
10301595
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
C+J 2020 Symposium
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Statistical Language and Speech Processing)
    Espinosa-Anke, Luis ; Martín-Vide, Carlos ; Spasić, Irena (Ed.)
    Algorithmic journalism refers to automatic AI-constructed news stories. There have been successful commercial implementations for news stories in sports, weather, financial reporting and similar domains with highly structured, well defined tabular data sources. Other domains such as local reporting have not seen adoption of algorithmic journalism, and thus no automated reporting systems are available in these categories which can have important implications for the industry. In this paper, we demonstrate a novel approach for producing news stories on government legislative activity, an area that has not widely adopted algorithmic journalism. Our data source is state legislative proceedings, primarily the transcribed speeches and dialogue from floor sessions and committee hearings in US State legislatures. Specifically, we create a library of potential events called phenoms. We systematically analyze the transcripts for the presence of phenoms using a custom partial order planner. Each phenom, if present, contributes some natural language text to the generated article: either stating facts, quoting individuals or summarizing some aspect of the discussion. We evaluate two randomly chosen articles with a user study on Amazon Mechanical Turk with mostly Likert scale questions. Our results indicate a high degree of achievement for accuracy of facts and readability of final content with 13 of 22 users in the first article and 19 of 20 subjects of the second article agreeing or strongly agreeing that the articles included the most important facts of the hearings. Other results strengthen this finding in terms of accuracy, focus and writing quality. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ( , Computational Journalism Symposium)
    Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ( , Computational Journalism C+J)
    null (Ed.)
    Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Numeracy)
    Because people are constantly confronted with numbers and mathematical concepts in the news, we have embarked on a project to create journalism that can support news users’ number skills. But doing so requires understanding (1) journalists’ ability to reason with numbers, (2) other adults’ ability to do so, and (3) the attributes and affordances of news. In this paper, we focus on the relationship between adults’ news habits and their quantitative reasoning skills. We collected data from a sample of 1,200 US adults, testing their ability to interpret statistical results and asking them to report their news habits. The assessment we developed differentiated the skills of adults in our sample and conformed to the theoretical and statistical assumption that such skills are normally distributed in the population overall. We also found that respondents could be clustered into six distinct groups on the basis of news repertoires (overall patterns of usage, including frequency of news use overall and choice of news outlets). As often assumed in the literature on quantitative reasoning, these news repertoires predicted quantitative reasoning skills better than the amount of quantification in the outlets, but they still predicted only a small fraction of the variance. These results may suggest that news habits may play a smaller or less direct role in quantitative reasoning than has previously been assumed. We speculate that the presence (or absence) of quantification in everyday activities – namely work and hobbies – may be a better predictor of adults’ quantitative reasoning, as may additional dimensions of news habits and affective responses to numbers. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ( , Digital Threats: Research and Practice)
    Automated journalism technology is transforming news production and changing how audiences perceive the news. As automated text-generation models advance, it is important to understand how readers perceive human-written and machine-generated content. This study used OpenAI’s GPT-2 text-generation model (May 2019 release) and articles from news organizations across the political spectrum to study participants’ reactions to human- and machine-generated articles. As participants read the articles, we collected their facial expression and galvanic skin response (GSR) data together with self-reported perceptions of article source and content credibility. We also asked participants to identify their political affinity and assess the articles’ political tone to gain insight into the relationship between political leaning and article perception. Our results indicate that the May 2019 release of OpenAI’s GPT-2 model generated articles that were misidentified as written by a human close to half the time, while human-written articles were identified correctly as written by a human about 70 percent of the time. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email