Google's Experimental Newsroom Avoids Negative Headlines
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.
we say bad stuff only when it makes us look good.
Without the usual diet of bad stuff happening what will they use to feed their various fears and neuroses?
.. israel has asked 30,000 of it's citizens to prepare for a community outreach program in the gaza strip, where they intend to engage locals in what's expected to be highly impactful face to face cultural exchanges
.. is the arctic the next greatest beach resort haven? it just might be!
... and finally, we re-introduce Blinky-san - the superfish everyone has known and loved.. leading the way in sushi dinners that leave you glowing with excitement!
Thank you Google for protecting me from reality no one should have to know about bad things that happen, in fact, why should we know anything at all except for Google approved happy thoughts. Every year Google seems to do something that makes me hate them more and more. So fuck you Google - you're a bunch of authoritarian asshats who think you should control the information we have access to while trying to turn everyone into your personal little database to mine and sell info from. Just go fuck yourselves.
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?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
A few months ago I was trying to look up the latest figures on the Ebola outbreak. All I could find through most news cites were BS articles that wasted 3/4 of their space on the background of what Ebola is and where Sierra Leone is. In my searching I stumbled across a Daily Map Archive from the EU commission.
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...
Coincidentally, their map today is of that very same Ebola outbreak. Things are not looking good.
> 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.