Slashdot Mirror
Quoted in Google News? Post a Comment
An anonymous reader writes "Google News has a feature it calls "Comments From People in the News." (rude interrupting registration may be required) The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article. (Journalists can comment, as well, Google says, though none have done so thus far.) Since it was introduced in the spring, the feature has largely existed under the radar, with roughly only about 150 total comments having been made. Thus far, Google News has used e-mail messages to encourage people quoted in articles to submit comments — an effort to prime the pump similar to the process that results in the first issue of a new magazine magically having letters to the editor."
So we now have a "Google Letters to the Editor" search now? Interesting.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
How do they authenticate the identity of the poster? How do I know it really is the person quoted in the article and not some disgusting slashdot troll?
If someone is panted in a poor light in an article they get a chance to rebut. It's a neat feature but do you really think 9/10th of people in the news will take time to respond to Google's news page and jump through the needed hoops to prove they're who they claim to be?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
What is stoping me from saying that I'm some guy that is quoted saying something?
I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.
:)
Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.
This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular
Journalists (not all of them, sure, but way too many) like to misquote on purpose, quote selectively, out-of-context or in any way otherwise changing the intended meaning of the quoted statement, after which the quoted (quotees? Is that even a word?) are left for the public to tear apart for something they didn't mean but the journalist wanted to put in their mouth - with no real way to correct what has already been printed, save for a few rich enough to take a legal action or just so rich to not give a crap about that.
Such a system gives a way for corrections like that to be made public instantly and directly. Maybe that has even happend already, I don't know - but I think that's the most interesting and possibly useful outcome of this.
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
Even if they do somehow verify your name, how do they know you're the right person with that name? I can't wait for someone called John Smith to make the news.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
When I worked as a reporter, the people I quoted sometimes remarked on the fact that I was the rare reporter who quoted them correctly. I honestly think that this was not because other reporters are dishonest, but because I type quickly and most of my interviews were over the phone. It was much harder for me to get direct quotes when interviewing with pad and paper.
While I think this is good, because it allows for sources to respond to an article, I think it's important to remember that the sources themselves may not always be truthful. If they don't like the way an article came out, they could say they were misquoted, even when they weren't.
I suppose the journalist's safeguard for this is to audio-record every interview, but danged if most sources would agree to that. There will inevitably be some "he said, she said."
This is a dupe!
From Slashdot, August 9th, 2007: Google News Allowing Story Participants To Comment
Ahem, editors still tipsy off the holiday eggnog?
Happy Holidays all!
If I had a sig, this is where it would be.
Since in almost every article, especially science and technology articles that require a broad understanding and depth to write coherently about, most writers mis-understand the interviewees (either willfully or through ignorance) this appears like it could be an excellent feature. A conscientious interviewee could fill in the gaps or correct misunderstandings the journalist missed and give us a more complete picture.
This could then turn into an ad-hoc rating system for journalists. How many articles did they write that were corrected? How good is their basic understanding of what someone said vs. what they actually meant? What way(s) did they colour the interviewees thoughts with their own biases? How many interviewees reputiate quotes (I did not say that!)?
It has a pretty good chance to work IF people are cognizant of it, assuming that if someone gives an interview they are at least attached enough to their own reputation to make sure the journalist gets what they are saying right. I know if I were mis-quoted or misunderstood I wouldn't want people to get the idea that I actually said/meant X instead of Y.
What you're saying can be boiled down to...
(1) People remember new and surprising things better than old and expected things.
(2) People are willing to believe stuff that is not well-supported by their own experience and personally known facts.
Both are clearly powerful advantages for members of a highly social species living in a changeable environment.
Obviously remembering something new and strange is more important than remembering something old and familiar, since what is old and familiar can be reconstructed from other stuff you already know, or from the memories of other members of the tribe, and you've already evolved some way of dealing with it anyway. For example, it's more important to remember that you saw strange new tracks of some large feline predator thingy at the water hole than to remember precisely where the water hole is. Other members of the tribe can help you remember how to get to the water hole, but you're the only one who can warn everyone else that something new and scary might be waiting for them there.
As for number 2, that's more subtle, but I suggest it comes in essence from the fact that individuals are quite expendable in the interests of the tribe. It make sense for the tribe if individual members of a tribe take wild guesses about what various ambiguous data mean. 90% of the time (say) they'll be wrong and perish but the rest of the tribe will learn from their mistake. The other 10% of the time they'll be right and discover as if by some magic powerful intuition some hidden fact about the world. Once again, the tribe will profit from observing them. Hence, although it's clearly stupid for the individual to make wild guesses about what causes lightning or whether this peculiar plant is safe to eat, the tribe will probably learn something quite useful if he does.
Bizarrely enough, yes. People want to dictate to reporters what will and won't go in the article. I had people wanting to insert "off the record, blah blah blah" into their comments all the time. In most cases, it was their opinion or grudge, and it didn't really matter, so I ignored it. But in one case, a police officer told me something and then said, "off the record," and proceeded to tell me the exact opposite. I was appalled. Rather than try to sort it out, I just didn't quote him at all. (By the way, in journalism school they taught us that unless we both agree it's off the record before something is said, it's fair game.)
In political reporting, if you must talk to the same sources often (a city manager, for example), you develop a basic relationship with them - not too chummy, but enough to hear their private gripes once in a while. Sometimes they will give you background information that they won't let you quote, but which will help you find that info from another source.
So at least in my experience, it would have been harder to get the same amount of information if I'd wanted to record everything. And given the time and cost involved (ever tried to transcribe a 1-hour interview?) and the fact that we were nearly never challenged on accuracy, it wasn't worth it. Maybe that would be different in another time or at another newspaper.