Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Launches a News Initiative To Fight False News and Help Publishers Make Money (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the fixing-things dept.

Google is launching the Google News Initiative, a journalism-focused program that will help publishers earn revenue and combat fake news. From a report: The initiative, announced Tuesday, will offer publications another monetization model online called Subscribe with Google, as well as work with established universities and groups to combat misinformation. It will also introduce an open-source tool called Outline, which will make it easier for news organizations to set up secure access to the internet for their journalists. Google said it was committing $300 million over the next three years to the project, though it did not elaborate on how the resources would be spent.

The company said it paid $12.6 billion to news organizations and drove 10 billion clicks a month to their websites for free last year. Subscribe with Google will make it easier for readers to pay for content from news organizations that have agreed to partner with the company. FT.com, The Washington Post, and McClatchy Company publications including the Miami Herald are among the 17 launch partners.

56 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are not and deep down your heart you know it too.

  2. How about proper labeling? by dlleigh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It used to be easy to tell actual news articles from commentary and opinion. But no more.

    How many news feeds distinguish between the two? How many news web sites clearly label an article as one or the other? How many readers even know the difference anymore.

    Solve the labeling problem first and the rest will be easier. Of course, hard news -- without inflammatory opinion -- garners fewer clicks, so there may be no motivation for proper labeling.

    1. Re:How about proper labeling? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even posting the news, it is still easy for the bias to be posted in the story.
      In our vocabulary we have many words that mean the same thing, however imply different contexts.
      Risk Taker vs. Careless
      Analytical vs Heartless
      Strategy vs Scheming
      Ambitious vs Power Hungry

      You can take the facts of the actions of an individual and express it in a way their are either a Hero or a Monster.

      The real problem, is such statements sell the story, while a moderate approach of the facts is just too dull.

       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:How about proper labeling? by greenwow · · Score: 1

      > opinion

      The best example of that I've seen lately is all of the articles that claimed Trump "tried" to fire someone. He can, so if he "tried," he would have. You have respected papers like the NYT and Wash Post that harmed their credibility by posting that headline.

    3. Re:How about proper labeling? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Even posting the news, it is still easy for the bias to be posted in the story. In our vocabulary we have many words that mean the same thing, however imply different contexts. Risk Taker vs. Careless Analytical vs Heartless Strategy vs Scheming Ambitious vs Power Hungry

      You can take the facts of the actions of an individual and express it in a way their are either a Hero or a Monster.

      The real problem, is such statements sell the story, while a moderate approach of the facts is just too dull.

      All of the terms you listed are interpretative, and are not needed for a straightforward reporting of facts. Who, what, where, when. Leave why for the editorialists.

    4. Re:How about proper labeling? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      actually, the phrase 'fake news' was first coined in liberal circles to label anything that supported trump and his opinions, he just took the phrase and ran with it. I do think it was one of his own that came up with 'alternative facts', but given the way reporting is done now it is a phrase that almost makes sense.
      consider:
      Liberal reporter
      Most climatologist agree that climate change is influenced by man.
      Many climatologist have concluded man is directly responsible for climate change
      The majority of data sets support the existence of rapid climate change.

                Conservative reporter
      Not all scientists are in complete agreement about Global warming
      It is difficult to prove a direct link between human activity and climate change.
      There are multiple data sets the contradict the existence rapid human linked climate change.

      You see, selectively reporting facts can be exactly the same as telling a lie. Depending on the issue liberal and conservative news agencies both engage in the same kind of disinformation. If for no other reason because they seek to engender themselves to specific market segments. Neither group bothers to give time to 'facts' that don't underscore the 'point' of their 'story'.
      Think about those words for a while. Do facts have a 'point'. No, facts provide information. Do they tell a compelling story. No, that is what entertainment is supposed to be for. Nowadays news is more entertainment then facts.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    5. Re:How about proper labeling? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Who: Senator Joe Smith, Republican Senator Joe Smith, Government Official, Washington Insider.
      What: Law Amendment #9314, Baby Feeding Bill, Welfare adjustment bill.
      Where: Washington DC, Capital Building, Back office in Capital Building.
      When: 10:30PM, Late in the evening, At the Last Moment.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Please get addicted to our revenue model where we are the middlemen between you and your subscribers' dollars. That way we can tell you what to publish or demonetize you like a conservative Youtube account."

    1. Re:Hmmmm by Entrope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. If the publishers don't own the platform, they are not running their own business, they are serving Google's.

  4. For America to Live Google Must Die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long will nerds fetishize monster tech corps like Google? It's a big part of the problem.

    1. Re:For America to Live Google Must Die by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      don't worry, there are alternatives, you can also bark like a kennel full of dogs with the news provided by the twitter SJWs

  5. Avoid Fake news? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Interesting.

    The NYT ran a story about how [Trump's CIA pick] Gina Haspel had a role in torture during her admin of a Thailand black site.

    That was later shown to be completely false (Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended). Pro Publica printed a retraction of their story, but the NYT did not.

    For comparison, Infowars is widely decried (*) as fake news for publishing the "Spirit Cooking" article, which is completely accurate in all its claims.

    Now congress-people are falling over themselves saying they will block Haspel's appointment to the CIA.

    What are the chances that these congressmen get their information from the NYT, are well-meaning, and yet misinformed?

    (*) That exact article is listed as an example of fake news in at least one scientific study of fake news! It's also debunked as "false" on Snopes.com

  6. The meaning of "fighting fake news" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is the censor those who speak of inconvenient truths, and opposing view or alternative facts, so people can educate themselves before forming an opinion.

    Google will basically do as Big Gov says and shape people's opinions, and continue to build the narrative that America is right and just, and everyone else is cheating, lying, and being dishonest.

  7. Advocacy Journalism... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...killed the News.

    As soon as journalists decided that shaping/pushing agendas was their moral duty, opinion and facts are intermixed freely without even an attempt to keep them clearly labeled.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by ohnonononono · · Score: 1

      You are right.
      Except that it was not really journalists that decided this change was necessary, it was their employers colluding with educational institutions.

    2. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why decades ago I stopped following watching typical 'news' and began reading verified(as possible) statistics about crime rates/areas/more and as hard/established data as is available. Problem is that goes against much of the gas lighting.

      Trusting google with the news would be like trusting gas to put out a fire.

    3. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but I think it is more just laziness. They need a headline to grab attention, then move on to the next story. The best example are stories about "the latest study on X". They summarize the first two sentences of the abstract, embellish that with another 45 seconds of banter, then go to commercial. Heck, last night I watch the news, where they talked about how many snow days the local schools have used. They went on wondering how schools were going to make up the time, indicating they they didn't know. 5 minutes on the school website would have cleared that up, but I can only assume they were just too lazy to do the work.

    4. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Good grief. Someone else who has no idea what a Nazi really is. But you sure are proud of yourself though so whatever makes you feel more virtuous..

    5. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that's completely true. If we weren't so intent on consuming what the news media put before us, they'd have all gone out of business years ago. You can chide them as much as you care to or claim that as professionals have a responsibility towards acting ethically within their profession, but consumer demand is what ultimately drives business.

    6. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by greenwow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After Woodward and Bernstein, too many journalists started trying to make the news rather than just objectively report on it. I'm old enough to remember what the news was like before them. Even Dan Rather, that for well over a decade was considered by many to be the most trusted journalist, threw his credibility in the trash and was fired because he knowingly pushed a fake attack on Bush Jr.

    7. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by MrTester · · Score: 1

      How much good are our advocate journalists doing right now? Is it solving much? How hard is THAT to understand?

      News should tell me the facts, not how I should feel about the facts.

    8. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by ohnonononono · · Score: 1

      It comes down to the ugly question of free will, doesn't it?
      How much of society's intent is a product of its education?
      I would claim that consumer demand is not a product of free will, it's a product of conditioning.
      Consumerism is a mechanism of slavery by addiction. People have basic desires from instinct. More complicated desires are shaped by their environment, which is controlled mostly by the plutocratic state.

    9. Re:Advocacy Journalism... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      you left out one by both sides ( at least in the united states) the best way to embrace and or reject religion. ( as both sides tend to use it more as a tool to get their as opposed to acting as believers should.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  8. Re:Avoid Fake news? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything. You could argue that the news media have made it easy for this to occur because they have such a strong focus on editorializing the news, but during the election fake news was originally applied to stories that were the kind of outright fabrications you might see in a grocery store checkout aisle tabloid.

  9. This is really not an issue for me by kfburke39 · · Score: 2

    This may sound selfish and myopic but this really does not apply to me. There is a sense in which we modern humans are inundated with information so it is wise to have good filter criteria for what you imbibe. For instance, I prefer books to periodicals and websites because the latter are more transitory in worth and sometimes the most latter are garbage due to lax publishing standards or low barrier for entry . So, when I am not reading math, computer science and science books on my Kobo Aura ONE ereader every Sunday I download the news from the Associated Press via Calibre and I also occassionally read academic journal periodicals, online, and Slashdot and the occasional ArsTechnica. The associated press are not going to publish fake news and I only read the politics, technology and science sections. I have also been reading slashdot since like 1998 and it does not carry fake news per se but modern Slashdot sometimes carries click bait. That is how I imbibe information as part of the nerd elite. I understand that Democracy is messy though and lower IQ people have voting power so fake news can affect me somewhat except for the fact that America is actually an Oligarchy with some Democratic features rather than a straight Democracy so it does not really matter what the average Joe and idiots imbibe, anyway !

  10. I don't need Google's help by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get my news directly from the only source I can trust...The Onion.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:I don't need Google's help by greenwow · · Score: 1

      You joke, but from seeing what my friends post on Facebook, too many of them "ate the onion."

  11. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes and no.

    Most are not "Fake News" in the Trumpian sense, as in they're not completely fabricated.

    However, many (if not the majority) of what one sees today has a nasty habit of taking some facts, emphasizing other (convenient) ones, completely ignoring still other (inconvenient) ones, then subtly weaving a narrative into what is being 'reported'. Then the 'story' gets spiced with enough drama to grab eyeballs (thus advertising dollars).

    This is to provide ammunition of opinion-making fellow travelers of a given ideology, to provide 'confirmation' to the existing audience base, and to garner influence (and thus power) along the way. Cable/Sat television news is chock full of it - CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, RT, you-name-it. The Papers are a lost cause in most cases these days, and the Web is even worse. Toss in some satire sites that are too-damned-close-to-reality (enough that it takes a fairly sharp mind to recognize that it's actually satire), and you have the mess we see today.

    It's gotten to the point where the only news orgs really worth watching/reading for news on events at large, are the ones which stick to mostly business-oriented content (such as CNBC, WSJ, Fox Business, and suchlike). Why? Because ideological BS tends to be secondary there, and they know that their audience (business folk) don't have much time, adoration, or tolerance for pap or propaganda. For politics, there's always C-SPAN, where you more often than not get it raw and unfiltered (and it's up to you to summarize it all, however you please.)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  12. Re:Avoid Fake news? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The problem with retraction, is the damage is already done, and companies all have different policies about retractions.
    Also to note, even irresponsible news sites sometimes will get the information right, because they are not concerned about where the info comes from, which sometimes gives them a lead in getting real information out.

    The real problem isn't accuracy of the information, but being able to trust the information. If a wrong story is posted, the media organization better have good reasons for posting it (sources seemed reliable, data was properly checked... however it was just mistaken information). While if they get it wrong a retraction should be a good first step, a responsible company should make sure they put enough effort to let people know about it, vs. a blurb on the website, or a 5 minute spot of the days retractions.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  13. Just what we need... by x0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A MegaCorp to spoon feed us 'news Google deems correct and proper'. Welcome to Prolefeed Beta!

    --
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
    1. Re:Just what we need... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Doubleplusgood! :)))

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  14. Re:Avoid Fake news? by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

    No they are not, we vet our stories here

    Fake news. Right here.

  15. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Labeling those you disagree with as "neo-nazis" and ideas you disagree with "hate-speech" is not meant to sway those people to your side, its designed to keep the ignorant on the plantation.

  16. Re:Avoid Fake news? by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen.

    You can try to define "fake" to exclude "biased, and occasionally quite dishonest" but that misses the more important question: Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?

    My own sense is that biased and/or dishonest stories on sites like NYT and WaPo are more influential than blatantly fake stories that someone with an agenda circulates on Facebook. Saying one is fake but the more harmful one is only dishonest but not fake obfuscates the real problem.

  17. Re:Avoid Fake news? by bobbied · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen.

    LOL.. Oh yes they have gone out of their way to invent things. Specifically about Trump and his administration they have reported stuff based on "unnamed sources" which frequently turned out wrong and/or misleading.

    Their motives for doing this are likely more about selling advertisements and making a profit than politics, but they HAVE been doing this kind of thing regularly.

    Journalism Ethics are dead in this country, mainly because they don't get you clicks or viewers.. Trump is just a tempting target, who by pointing out the "fake news" actually helps them get clicks and viewers..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Gulag: the Ministry of Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This story is laughable. Google is the world's biggest distributor of lies and propaganda.

  19. Google... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    ...further manoeuvres to position itself as the predominant gatekeeper and controller of news. If we let them do that too much, most of our news will be reduced to that which is profitable to Google, regardless of whether it serves the public good.

    There, fixed that for you ;)

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  20. Finally! by TheSouthernDandy · · Score: 1

    No more lies! We'll see the mic booms on the "moon landing" footage, chemtrails will be exposed as whites-only obesity-promoting chemicals, and we'll learn the true extent of the HAARP array's mind control powers!

    ...Or did they mean fighting actually fake news? Pphht, doesn't seem like a very revenue-positive thing to do.

  21. Re:Avoid Fake news? by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Informative

    The NYT has added corrections and notes to their article:

    While Ms. Haspel oversaw the site during the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at the site, she did not supervise the interrogation and waterboarding of the suspected Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.

    So saying that Gina Haspel having had a role in torture is "completely false" really just relies on what you define that as, which people naturally gravitate towards defining according to personal preference to get the result ("NYT totally lied" or "Gina Haspel is 100% ok") they want.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  22. Re:Avoid Fake news? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?

    I'm not sure how you could say that either is disallowed without trampling on free speech, which is far more dangerous than any amount of fake or biased news could ever hope to be. If you think it's such a large problem in need of a solution, I believe that you should try to offer a better, competing product instead of attempting to legislate what people are allowed to consume.

    The real issue is that most people have already arrived at their conclusions and will seek out sources to affirm those beliefs regardless of how true or false they might be. There's little incentive to give people objective facts when there are so few people who want them.

  23. You can thank Fox News for that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they argued, successfully, that they weren't a "News" organization and were in fact an entertainment network. That's how they get away with running opinion pieces and news stories side by side without notice or a pause. Nothing on Fox is technically "News", it's entertainment. Legally speaking that is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You can thank Fox News for that by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1
      OK, I can't let this go.

      they argued, successfully, that they weren't a "News" organization and were in fact an entertainment network. That's how they get away with running opinion pieces and news stories side by side without notice or a pause.

      No. Much as I loathe Fox News, I'd rather see them strung up for actual, documented abuses rather than an urban legend that was debunked years ago. First, it was a single station rather than the entire network. Second, it was a management dispute with a particular employee, not a dispute over the station's truthiness in general. And finally, while the court awarded the plaintiff damages, it made a specific note that it was not a question of the station's truthfulness but a personal dispute between station management and the employee. Absolutely, network news -- including both Fox and CNN -- tilt their news to favor their POV, but you can't pin it all on Fox and pretend the others are objective.

  24. Re:Avoid Fake news? by tomhath · · Score: 1
    My point was responding to GGP's statement:

    I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything

    Calling stories that are intentionally biased or dishonest is applying the word fake to "anything"? I disagree.

    If Google wants to set a standard for journalism they accept, they should hold everyone to it.

  25. Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Put robots in charge on the news.

  26. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're obviously lying. I checked your claims and
    - contrary to what you say, she did "have a role in torture", namely she was in charge of the whole thing while people were tortured
    - contrary to what you say, the New York Times did correct their mistake regarding the torture of Zubaydah, and the article body as well as the appended note reflect this transparently
    - all other accusations (that she commanded a torture center and ordered evidence thereof destroyed) stand
    - "Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended" is totally false

  27. Re:Avoid Fake news? by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

    NYT's correction appears to be at odds with ProPublica's correction.

    NYT: "While Ms. Haspel oversaw the site during the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at the site"
    via https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    ProPublica: "It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended."
    via https://www.propublica.org/art...

  28. Re:Avoid Fake news? by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    I .... don't see how you think those two statements are at odds. Those are two different people (Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah.) Their interrogations occurred at different times.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  29. Re:Avoid Fake news? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

    Haspel took over months after the tortures had ended

    Yeah, you appear to be lying - or, to be charitable, just misinformed... The various articles mention the names of two tortured people. It's true that she wasn't there for the first, but she was there for the second. More precisely, she was the chief of the Thailand prison between October and December 2002. The second person in the article was tortured between mid-November and December 2002, so during her tenure.

  30. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

    Infowars is not decried as fake news because of the "Spirit Cooking" article. It's decried as fake news because it's not even "news."

  31. Re: Avoid Fake news? by Jerry · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  32. Re:Avoid Fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What you say is true, but I'd just like to take it a step further.

    There's a reason there's no real, "unspun" news to be had: it can't be monetised. You can't copyright facts. Anyone who tries to report "just facts" will have to look at them being stolen, in real time, by all these other outlets and spun into the same crappy stories you describe. To an extent Reuters, AP and suchlike agencies tried to do this, and now look at them - they're barely better than the rest.

    The web is fatal to journalism: its incentives are all to cock.

  33. immigrant vs illegal by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    I'll believe that they are interested in promoting truth when they start flagging people who conflate all immigrants, both legal and illegal, with illegal immigrants. Those liars really need a proper flogging.

  34. Re:Avoid Fake news? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    What about the "un-named source" reports that are so common with CNN that turn out to be absolutely false?

    There are still people that believe the Trump collusion delusion. So many people are like - today will be the day they finally have some proof.
    Maybe they're waiting for proof on the tooth fairy and the money from the dead Nigerian Prince.

    There is also the matter of the very good, probably enough to convict proof about Hillary's collusion with the Russians.

  35. Correct heading by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Google Launches a News Initiative To Help Publishers Make Money

  36. Re:Avoid Fake news? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Fake claim
    CNN caught a couple of bad reporters UNLIKE Faux, they were fired immediately
    UNLIKE WND, the truth is rewarded at CNN

  37. Re:Avoid Fake news? by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

    Hey, thanks for the reply..

    Looks like I got my quotes crossed while trying to quickly compare corrections.