Flipboard: A Pivot, But Is the Crowd Impressed?
February 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Twitter’s (X’s) downward spiral is leading more interest in decentralized social networks like Mastodon, BlueSky, and Pixelfed. Now a certain news app is following the trend. TechCrunch reports, “Flipboard Just Brought Over 1,000 of its Social Magazines to Mastodon and the Fediverse.” One wonders: do these "flip" or just lead to blank pages and dead ends? Writer Sarah Perez tells us:
“After sensing a change in the direction that social media was headed, Flipboard last year dropped support for Twitter/X in its app, which today allows users to curate content from around the web in ‘magazines’ that are shared with other readers. In Twitter’s place, the company embraced decentralized social media, and last May became the first app to support BlueSky, Mastodon, and Pixelfed (an open source Instagram rival) all in one place. While those first integrations allowed users to read, like, reply, and post to their favorite apps from within Flipboard’s app, those interactions were made possible through APIs.”
An enthusiastic entrepreneur makes a sudden pivot on the ice. The crowd is not impressed. Good enough, MidJourney.
In December Flipboard announced it would soon support the Fediverse’s networking protocol, ActivityPub. That shift has now taken place, allowing users of decentralized platforms to access its content. Flipboard has just added 20 publishers to those that joined its testing phase in December. Each has its own native ActivityPub feed for maximum Fediverse discoverability. Flipboard’s thematic nature allows users to keep their exposure to new topics to a minimum. We learn:
“The company explains that allowing users to follow magazines instead of other accounts means they can more closely track their particular interests. While a user may be interested in the photography that someone posts, they may not want to follow their posts about politics or sports. Flipboard’s magazines, however, tend to be thematic in nature, allowing users to browse news, articles, and social posts referencing a particular topic, like healthy eating, climate tech, national security, and more.”
Perez notes other platforms are likewise trekking to the decentralized web. Medium and Mozilla have already made the move, and Instagram (Meta) is working on an ActivityPub integration for Threads. WordPress now has a plug-in for all its bloggers who wish to post to the Fediverse. With all this new interest, will ActivityPub be able to keep (or catch) up?
Our view is that news aggregation via humans may be like the young Bob Hope rising to challenge older vaudeville stars. But motion pictures threaten the entire sector. Is this happening again? Yep.
Cynthia Murrell, February 26, 2024
What a Great Testament to Peer Review!
February 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have been concerned about academic research journals for decades. These folks learn that a paper is wonky and, guess what. Most of the bogus write ups remain online. Now that big academic wheels have been resigning due to mental lapses or outright plagiarism and made up data, we have this wonderful illustration:
The diagram looks like an up-market medical illustration, I think it is a confection pumped out by a helpful smart software image outputter. “FrontiersIn Publishes Peer Reviewed Paper with AI Generated Rat Image, Sparking Reliability Concerns” reports:
A peer-reviewed scientific paper with nonsensical AI-generated images, including a rat with exaggerated features like a gigantic penis, has been published by FrontiersIn, a major research publisher. The images have sparked concerns about the reliability of AI-generated content in academia.
I loke the “gigantic penis” trope. Are the authors delivering a tongue-in-cheek comment to the publishers of peer-reviewed papers? Are the authors chugging along blissfully unaware of the reputational damage data flexing has caused the former president of Stanford University and the big dog of ethics at Harvard University? Is the write up a slightly more sophisticated Onion article?
Interesting hallucination on the part of the alleged authors and the smart software. Most tech bros are happy with an exotic car. Who knew what appealed to a smart software system’s notion of a male rat organ?
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2024
A Xoogler Explains AI, News, Inevitability, and Real Business Life
February 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an essay providing a tiny bit of evidence that one can take the Googler out of the Google, but that Xoogler still retains some Googley DNA. The item appeared in the Bezos bulldozer’s estimable publication with the title “The Real Wolf Menacing the News Business? AI.” Absolutely. Obviously. Who does not understand that?
A high-technology sophist explains the facts of life to a group of listeners who are skeptical about artificial intelligence. The illustration was generated after three tries by Google’s own smart software. I love the miniature horse and the less-than-flattering representation of a sales professional. That individual looks like one who would be more comfortable eating the listeners than convincing them about AI’s value.
The essay contains a number of interesting points. I want to highlight three and then, as I quite enjoy doing, I will offer some observations.
The author is a Xoogler who served from 2017 to 2023 as the senior director of news ecosystem products. I quite like the idea of a “news ecosystem.” But ecosystems as some who follow the impact of man on environments can be destroyed or pushed to the edge of catastrophe. In the aftermath of devastation coming from indifferent decision makers, greed fueled entrepreneurs, or rhinoceros poachers, landscapes are often transformed.
First, the essay writer argues:
The news publishing industry has always reviled new technology, whether it was radio or television, the internet or, now, generative artificial intelligence.
I love the word “revile.” It suggests that ignorant individuals are unable to grasp the value of certain technologies. I also like the very clever use of the word “always.” Categorical affirmatives make the world of zeros and one so delightfully absolute. We’re off to a good start I think.
Second, we have a remarkable argument which invokes another zero and one type of thinking. Consider this passage:
The publishers’ complaints were premised on the idea that web platforms such as Google and Facebook were stealing from them by posting — or even allowing publishers to post — headlines and blurbs linking to their stories. This was always a silly complaint because of a universal truism of the internet: Everybody wants traffic!
I love those universal truisms. I think some at Google honestly believe that their insights, perceptions, and beliefs are the One True Path Forward. Confidence is good, but the implication that a universal truism exists strikes me as information about a psychological and intellectual aberration. Consider this truism offered by my uneducated great grandmother:
Always get a second opinion.
My great grandmother used the logically troublesome word “always.” But the idea seems reasonable, but the action may not be possible. Does Google get second opinions when it decides to kill one of its services, modify algorithms in its ad brokering system, or reorganize its contentious smart software units? “Always” opens the door to many issues.
Publishers (I assume “all” publishers)k want traffic. May I demonstrate the frailty of the Xoogler’s argument. I publish a blog called Beyond Search. I have done this since 2008. I do not care if I get traffic or not. My goal was and remains to present commentary about the antics of high-technology companies and related subjects. Why do I do this? First, I want to make sure that my views about such topics as Google search exist. Second, I have set up my estate so the content will remain online long after I am gone. I am a publisher, and I don’t want traffic, or at least the type of traffic that Google provides. One exception causes an argument like the Xoogler’s to be shown as false, even if it is self-serving.
Third, the essay points its self-righteous finger at “regulators.” The essay suggests that elected officials pursued “illegitimate complaints” from publishers. I noted this passage:
Prior to these laws, no one ever asked permission to link to a website or paid to do so. Quite the contrary, if anyone got paid, it was the party doing the linking. Why? Because everybody wants traffic! After all, this is why advertising businesses — publishers and platforms alike — can exist in the first place. They offer distribution to advertisers, and the advertisers pay them because distribution is valuable and seldom free.
Repetition is okay, but I am able to recall one of the key arguments in this Xoogler’s write up: “Everybody wants traffic.” Since it is false, I am not sure the essay’s argumentative trajectory is on the track of logic.
Now we come to the guts of the essay: Artificial intelligence. What’s interesting is that AI magnetically pulls regulators back to the casino. Smart software companies face techno-feudalists in a high-stakes game. I noted this passage about anchoring statements via verification and just training algorithms:
The courts might or might not find this distinction between training and grounding compelling. If they don’t, Congress must step in. By legislating copyright protection for content used by AI for grounding purposes, Congress has an opportunity to create a copyright framework that achieves many competing social goals. It would permit continued innovation in artificial intelligence via the training and testing of LLMs; it would require licensing of content that AI applications use to verify their statements or look up new facts; and those licensing payments would financially sustain and incentivize the news media’s most important work — the discovery and verification of new information — rather than forcing the tech industry to make blanket payments for rewrites of what is already long known.
Who owns the casino? At this time, I would suggest that lobbyists and certain non-governmental entities exert considerable influence over some elected and appointed officials. Furthermore, some AI firms are moving as quickly as reasonably possible to convert interest in AI into revenue streams with moats. The idea is that if regulations curtail AI companies, consumers would not be well served. No 20-something wants to read a newspaper. That individual wants convenience and, of course, advertising.
Now several observations:
- The Xoogler author believes in AI going fast. The technology serves users / customers what they want. The downsides are bleats and shrieks from an outmoded sector; that is, those engaged in news
- The logic of the technologist is not the logic of a person who prefers nuances. The broad statements are false to me, for example. But to the Xoogler, these are self-evident truths. Get with our program or get left to sleep on cardboard in the street.
- The schism smart software creates is palpable. On one hand, there are those who “get it.” On the other hand, there are those who fight a meaningless battle with the inevitable. There’s only one problem: Technology is not delivering better, faster, or cheaper social fabrics. Technology seems to have some downsides. Just ask a journalist trying to survive on YouTube earnings.
Net net: The attitude of the Xoogler suggests that one cannot shake the sense of being right, entitlement, and logic associated with a Googler even after leaving the firm. The essay makes me uncomfortable for two reasons: [1] I think the author means exactly what is expressed in the essay. News is going to be different. Get with the program or lose big time. And [2] the attitude is one which I find destructive because technology is assumed to “do good.” I am not too sure about that because the benefits of AI are not known and neither are AI’s downsides. Plus, there’s the “everybody wants traffic.” Monopolistic vendors of online ads want me to believe that obvious statement is ground truth. Sorry. I don’t.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2024
Alternative Channels, Superstar Writers, and Content Filtering
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In this post-Twitter world, a duel of influencers is playing out in the blogosphere. At issue: Substack’s alleged Nazi problem. The kerfuffle began with a piece in The Atlantic by Jonathan M. Katz, but has evolved into a debate between Platformer’s Casey Newton and Jesse Singal of Singal-Minded. Both those blogs are hosted by Substack.
To get up to speed on the controversy, see the original Atlantic article. Newton wrote a couple posts about Substack’s responses and detailing Platformer’s involvement. In “Substack Says It Will Remove Nazi Publications from the Platform,” he writes:
“Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies. As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.”
How many publications did Platformer flag, and how many of those did Substack remove? Were they significant publications, and did they really violate the rules? These are the burning questions Singal sought to answer. He shares his account in, “Platformer’s Reporting on Substack’s Supposed ‘Nazi Problem’ Is Shoddy and Misleading.” But first, he specifies his own perspective on Katz’ Atlantic article:
“In my view, this whole thing is little more than a moral panic. Moreover, Katz cut certain corners to obscure the fact that to the extent there are Nazis on Substack at all, it appears they have almost no following or influence, and make almost no money. In one case, for example, Katz falsely claimed that a white nationalist was making a comfortable living writing on Substack, but even the most cursory bit of research would have revealed that that is completely false.”
Singal says he plans a detailed article supporting that assertion, but first he must pick apart Platformer’s position. Readers are treated to details from an email exchange between the bloggers and reasons Singal feels Newton’s responses are inadequate. One can navigate to that post for those details if one wants to get into the weeds. As of this writing, Newton has not published a response to Singal’s diatribe. Were we better off when such duels took place 280 characters at a time?
One positive about newspapers: An established editorial process kept superstars grounded in reality. Now entitlement, more than content, seems to be in the driver’s seat.
Cynthia Murrell, February 7, 2024
Surprising Real Journalism News: The Chilling Claws of AI
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I wanted to highlight two interesting items from the world of “real” news and “real” journalism. I am a dinobaby and not a “real” anything. I do, however, think these two unrelated announcements provide some insight into what 2024 will encourage.
The harvesters of information wheat face a new reality. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. How’s that email security? Ah, good enough. Okay.
The first item comes from everyone’s favorite, free speech service X.com (affectionately known to my research team as Xhitter). The item appears as a titbit from Max Tani. The message is an allegedly real screenshot of an internal memorandum from a senior executive at the Wall Street Journal. The screenshot purports to make clear that the Murdoch property is allowing some “real” journalists to find their future elsewhere. Perhaps in a fast food joint in Olney, Maryland? The screenshot is difficult for my 79-year-old eyes to read, but I got some help from one of my research team. The X.com payload says:
Today we announced a new structure in Washington [DC] that means a number of our colleagues will be leaving the paper…. The new Washington bureau will focus on politics, policy, defense, law, intelligence and national security.
Okay, people are goners. The Washington, DC bureau will focus on Washington, DC stuff. What was the bureau doing? Oh, perhaps that is why “our colleagues will be leaving the paper.” Cost cutting and focusing are in vogue.
The second item is titled “Q&A: How Thomson Reuters Used GenAI to Enable a Citizen Developer Workforce.” I want to alert you that the Computerworld article is a mere 3,800 words. Let me summarize the gist of the write up: “AI is going to replace expensive “real” journalists., My hunch is that some of the lawyers involved in annotating, assembling, and blessing the firm’s legal content. To Thomson Reuters’ credit, the company is trying to swizzle some sweetener into what may be a bitter drink for some involved with the “trust” crowd.
Several observations:
- It is about 13 months since Microsoft made AI its next big thing. That means that these two examples are early examples of what is going to happen to many knowledge workers
- Some companies just pull the pin; others are trying to find ways to avoid PR problems and lawsuits
- The more significant disruptions will produce a reasonably new type of worker push back.
Net net: Imagine what the next year will bring as AI efficiency digs in, bites tail feathers, and enriches those who sit in the top one percent.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Journalism Is … Exciting, Maybe Even Thrilling
January 31, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Journalism is a field in an unusual industrial location. It is an important career because journalists are dedicated to sharing current and important information. Journalism, however, is a difficult field because news outlets are fading faster than the Internet’s current meme. Another alarming problem for journalists, especially those who work internationally, is the increasing risk of incarceration. The Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that according to a “2023 Prison Census: Jailed Journalists Near Record High; Israel Imprisonments Spike.”
Due to the October 7 terrorist attack by Palestinian-led Hamas and the start of a new war, Israel ranked sixth on the list countries that imprison journalists. Israel ironically tied with Iran and is behind China, Myanmar, Belarus, Russia, and Vietnam. CPJ recorded that 320 journalists were incarcerated in 2023. It’s the second-highest number since CPJ started tracking in 1992. CPJ explained the high number of imprisonments is due to authoritarian regimes silencing the opposition. One hundred sixty-eight, more than half of the journalists, are charged with terrorism for critical coverage and spreading “false news.”
China is one of the worst offenders with Orwellian censorship laws, human rights violations, and a crackdown on pro-democracy protests and news. Myanmar’s coup in 2021 and Belarus’s controversial 2020 election incited massive upheavals and discontentment with citizens. Reporters from these countries are labeled as extremists when they are imprisoned.
Israel ties with Iran in 2023 due to locking up a high number of Palestinian journalists. They’re kept behind bars without cause on the grounds to prevent future crimes. Iran might have less imprisoned journalists than 2022 but the country is still repressing the media. Russia also keeps a high number of journalists jailed due to its war with Ukraine.
Jailed reporters face horrific conditions:
“Prison conditions are harsh in the nations with the worst track records of detaining journalists. Country reports released by the U.S. Department of State in early 2023 found that prisoners in China, Myanmar, Belarus, Russia, and Vietnam typically faced physical and sexual abuse, overcrowding, food and water shortages, and inadequate medical care.”
They still face problems even when they’ve served their sentence:
“Many journalists face curbs on their freedom even after they’ve served their time. This not only affects their livelihoods, but allows repressive governments to continue silencing their voices.”
These actions signify the importance of the US Constitution’s First Amendment. Despite countless attempts for politicians and bad actors to silence journalists abroad and on home soil, the First Amendment is still upheld. It’s so easy to take it for granted.
Whitney Grace, January 31, 2024
Online Journalism Reveals the Omnispert Mentality in Full Bloom
January 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
PREAMBLE
I am a dinobaby. I worked in big, rapacious outfits. I worked for a family-owned newspaper. I worked for a giant, faceless professional publisher. I worked alone, serving as the world’s ugliest Kelly Girl (a once-proud rental agency). Over the last couple of decades, I have watched as “real” journalists have broken from a run-down stable and headed toward the green, shimmering pasture on the horizon. Some died and became Wal-Mart greeters. Others found their way to the promised land.
The journey and its apparently successful conclusion caused a change in the mindset of some “real” journalists. A few morphed into YouTube-type video stars; a smaller number became talking heads on a cable or broadcast channel with fewer viewers than the iconoclastic NoAgenda.com podcast. Others underwent an intellectual transformation. From reporting the news, these fortunate (possibly chosen) individuals became what I call “omnisperts”; that is, my word for an “everything” expert. The shift is fascinating, mostly because I observed “real” news people in the companies for which I worked either as an officer or a consultant.
An expert on everything is usually self-appointed. These “everything experts” or “omnisperts” can find fault and simultaneous emit entitlement. The idea is that “you are stupid” and “I am smart.” The approach is often a key component of “real” journalism today. Social media has, like radiation, altered the DNA from reporter to source of divine wisdom. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Definitely good enough and illustrative of the system’s biases: White, mail, big city, and money.
The shift in the DNA of a “real” journalist from a person assigned a story or, in the case of a feature writer, a finder of a story in alignment with the “desk” issuing the work order, has been caused by the flow of digital bits via Facebook, Twitter, and other social media conduits. Bombard a rat with enough gamma radiation, and what happens? Well, the rats — before their life force takes a vacation can exhibit some interesting behavior and a lucky few output some baby rats. These can be objects of radiation specialists’ learning trajectory. Surprised because I relate radiation to bits from social media? Some are; some are not.
I thought about my experiences with “real” journalists when I read “The 20-Year Boondoggle.” The boondoggle is the Department of Homeland Security. The subtitle to the write up asks, “So What the Hell Happened?”
MY APPROACH
Now before I address, the language in the headline, the “real” news in the write up, or the confusion of doing what I thought journalists in the organizations at which I worked years ago did, I want to comment on the presentation of the textual information.
The publication in which this “real” news story appears is the Verge. Some of the stories are difficult for me to read. An essay about Google was a baffler. I just gave up because blocks of text and graphics jumped around. This Boondoggle piece is a mix of flickering background images and text. (I made a note of the illustrator. I don’t want to be involved with this fellow, his firm, or his “school” of graphics for business information in the future.) The essay (because I am not sure it is “real” news) features a puppet. I don’t think a puppet is a positive, but it does a good job of communicating the idea that “someone” is pulling strings. There is a big graphic showing people sliding down something and into flickering water. Remember, please, that this is a “real” news article, but it is trying, really trying, to be a TikTok-meme machine I think. Then there is an illustration of people with their heads either in the “clouds” (which are vibrating like a DaVinci Fusion effect or a giant swarm of blue bees). The image is not a positive one in my opinion. The illustration which troubled me is one that shows people falling out of the fourth floor of an office building to their death. A sketch of a motion picture or made-for-streaming spy story surveillance room suggests that the world outside of the office and on the computer monitors is a chaotic mess. That’s okay. Has the world ever been something other than a chaotic mess?
These illustrations make clear that the 8,000 or so words in the “real” news report that the author and the publisher find a US government agency to be a problem. I know this because the subhead “The Problem Is” is used six times. Helpful. The repetition makes clear that the article itself is revealing information that is definitely super problematic. If a grade school teacher or an entitled Google-type executive says “The problem is” to someone six times, it’s safe to say that you are [a] going to have a chance to find your future elsewhere, [b] what you and your agency have done is really, really bad and you must be punished, and [c] we know better than anyone else how to do your work. “Listen up, losers” the article shouts, jiggles, and repeats more than Chubby Checker’s “The Twist” or a knock off disco tune in a bar in Ibiza.
But what about the information in the write up. Okay, okay. Let me offer three comments, and invite you to read the 8,000 word original, award winning, knock out “real” news story yourself. (I had to down this puppy in three separate sessions because it exemplifies the journalist as omnispert in a top shelf way. (I think I should spell omnispert as omnispurt to better capture the flood of “real” news.)
THREE IRRITATIONS
First, the write up points out that the US Department of Homeland Security sucks. I find it fascinating that those who have not had an opportunity to work in either law enforcement, intelligence, or allied fields find that a Federal agency is a failure. I don’t have an easy way to address this “certain blind spot.” Maybe a couple of ride alongs or working on a project focused on locating a bad actor would provide some context. I know that words won’t do it. The gulf between “real” journalists and the individuals who work to enforce applicable laws is a wide one. I will not suggest that “real” journalists fall to their deaths from an office window. I am a dinobaby, not a “real” journalist criticizing the work of people who — believe it or not — are in harm’s way every single day. Think about that when ordering a cinnamon latte tomorrow morning.
Second, no one pays any attention to DHS. Once again, it would be helpful for a “real” journalist to step back and ask, “Are large government agencies in the UK, France, Germany, or Japan functioning in a materially different way? With perspective, one can appreciate the problem of a work force cut free from the social norms, shared beliefs, and willingness to compromise once part of industrial societies’ culture. The “government agencies” reflect the people who work there. And guess what, “real” journalist, those people are like you. They exhibit the same strengths and weaknesses. I would submit that you are providing more information about your weaknesses, preferences, and biases than actionable information about a government agency.
Third, the cherry picking of examples is part of the “real” news game. I get it. What I don’t get is the sense of entitlement oozing from the word choice, the dorky headlines, and the boy, these people are stupid approach. Here’s one example and not the most egregious one by the way:
The lack of control starts at headquarters and trickles down.This means DHS has trouble keeping track of what’s in its warehouses, from electronic equipment to antiviral medication, as well as what warehouses it even controls. It means that there have been times when a single deportation officer has been assigned to supervise nearly 10,000 non-detained migrants. It means the department lacks consistent, enforceable requirements for subcontractors around price, schedule, and capability, such that in 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found only two of 22 major programs at DHS were on track — racking up an estimated $9.7 billion more than expected.
A POSSIBLE FIX
Wow, DHS is supposed to “fix” this problem. Maybe the “real” journalists would like to apply for a job, rise through the ranks, and make everything better. Fat chance.
Net net: How quickly can AI replace certain human “real” journalists? Answer: Not soon enough.
Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2024
The Future of One Kind of Publishing: It Is Unusual (Sorry, Tom Jones)
January 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Today’s equivalent of a famous journalist like Walter Winchell, Paul Harvey, or (bow down now) Edward R. Murrow owe their fame to Twitter.com. Now that service has changed, so the new ink stained celebrities take their followers and move to aggregation platforms. Some of these notables charge subscriptions. Unencumbered by the miserable newsroom management ethos, these super stars of wordsmithing want things like their online vehicles to be just so.
Now in an X.com world, a duel of influencers is playing out in the blogosphere. At issue: Substack’s alleged Nazi problem. The kerfuffle began with a piece in The Atlantic by Jonathan M. Katz, but has evolved into a debate between Platformer’s Casey Newton and Jesse Singal of Singal-Minded. Both those blogs are hosted by Substack.
To get up to speed on the controversy, see the original Atlantic article. Newton wrote a couple posts about Substack’s responses and detailing Platformer’s involvement. In “Substack Says It Will Remove Nazi Publications from the Platform,” he writes:
“Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies. As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.”
How many publications did Platformer flag, and how many of those did Substack remove? Were they significant publications, and did they really violate the rules? These are the burning questions Sengal sought to answer. He shares his account in, “Platformer’s Reporting on Substack’s Supposed ‘Nazi Problem’ Is Shoddy and Misleading.” But first, he specifies his own perspective on Katz’ Atlantic article:
“In my view, this whole thing is little more than a moral panic. Moreover, Katz cut certain corners to obscure the fact that to the extent there are Nazis on Substack at all, it appears they have almost no following or influence, and make almost no money. In one case, for example, Katz falsely claimed that a white nationalist was making a comfortable living writing on Substack, but even the most cursory bit of research would have revealed that that is completely false.”
Sengal says he plans a detailed article supporting that assertion, but first he must pick apart Platformer’s position. Readers are treated to details from an email exchange between the bloggers and reasons Sengal feels Newton’s responses are inadequate. One can navigate to that post for those details if one wants to get into the weeds. As of this writing, Newton has not published a response to Sengal’s diatribe. Were we better off when such duels took place a hundred characters at a time?
I am looking forward to the next turn of the journalistic wheel. Exciting because “real” journalists are morphing into pundits, consultants, gurus, predictors of the future, and T shirt vendors. What happened to the good old days of “yellow journalism”?
Cynthia Murrell, January 23, 2024
Has a Bezos Protuberance Knocked WaPo for a Loop?
January 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I thought the Washington Post was owned by one of the world’s richest me with a giant rocket ship and a really big yacht with huge protuberances. I probably am wrong, but what’s new? I found the information in “Washington Post Newsroom Is Rattled by Buyouts” in line with other organizations layoffs, terminations, RIFs, whatever. My goodness, how could an outfit with some Bezos magic be cutting costs. I think that protuberance obsessed fellow just pumped big money into an artificial intelligence start up. To fund that, it makes sense to me in today’s business environment to accept cost cutting and wild and crazy investments in relatively unproven technology amusing. No, it is not interesting.
An aspiring journalist at a university’s whose president quit because it was easier to invent and recycle information look at the closed library. The question is a good one, even if the young journalist cannot spell. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Three tries. Bingo.
The write up in Vanity Fair, which is a business magazine like Harvard University’s Harvard Business Review without the allegations of plagiarism and screwy diversity battles, brings up images of would-be influencers clutching their giant metal and custom ceramic mugs and gripping their mobile phones with fear in their eyes. Imagine. A newspaper with staff cuts. News!
The article points out:
Scaling back staff while heading into a pivotal presidential election year seems like an especially ill-timed move given the _Post_’s traditional strengths in national politics and policy. Senior editors at the _Post_ have been banking on heightened interest in the election to juice readership amid slowed traffic and subscriptions. At one point in the meeting, according to two staffers, investigative reporter Carol Leonnig said that over the years she’d been told that the National team was doing great work and that issues on the business side would be taken care of, only for the problems to persist.
The write up states:
In late December, word of who’d taken a buyout at _The_ _Washington Post_ began to trickle out. Reporters found themselves especially alarmed by the hard cost cutting hit taken by one particular department: news research, a unit that assists investigations by, among other things, tracking down subjects, finding court records, verifying claims, and scouring documents. The department’s three most senior researchers—Magda Jean-Louis and Pulitzer Prize winners Alice Crites and Jennifer Jenkins—had all accepted buyouts, among the 240 that the company offered employees across departments amid financial struggles. That left news research with only three people: supervisor Monika Mathur and researchers Cate Brown, who specializes in international research, and Razzan Nakhlawi.
The “real news” is that research librarians are bailing out before a day of reckoning which could nuke pensions and other benefits. Researchers are quite intelligent people in my opinion.
Do these actions reflect on Mr. Bezos, he of the protuberance fixation, and his management methods? Amazon has a handful of challenges. The oddly shaped Bezos rocket ship has on occasion exploded. And now the gem of DC journalism is losing people. I would suggest that management methods have a role to play.
Killing off support for corporate libraries is not a new thing. The Penn Central outfit was among the first big corporate giant to decide its executives could live without a special library. Many other firms have followed in the last 15 years or so. Now the Special Library Association is a shadow of its former self, trampled by expert researchers skilled in the use of the Google and by hoards of self-certified individuals who proclaim themselves open source information experts. Why wouldn’t an outfit focused on accurate information dump professional writers and researchers? It meshes quite well with alternative facts, fake news, and AI-generated content. Good enough is the mantra of the modern organization. How much cereal is in your kids’ breakfast box when you first open it? A box half full. Good enough.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2024
The American Way: Loose the Legal Eagles! AI, Gray Lady, AI.
December 29, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
With the demands of the holidays, I have been remiss in commenting upon the festering legal sores plaguing the “real” news outfits. Advertising is tough to sell. Readers want some stories, not every story. Subscribers churn. The dead tree version of “real” news turn yellow in the windows of the shrinking number of bodegas, delis, and coffee shops interested in losing floor space to “real” news displays.
A youthful senior manager enters Dante’s fifth circle of Hades, the Flaming Legal Eagles Nest. Beelzebub wishes the “real” news professional good luck. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, I encountered no warnings when I used the word “Dante.” Good enough.
Google may be coming out of the dog training school with some slightly improved behavior. The leash does not connect to a shock collar, but maybe the courts will provide curtail some of the firm’s more interesting behaviors. The Zuckbook and X.com are news shy. But the smart software outfits are ripping the heart out of “real” news. That hurts, and someone is going to pay.
Enter the legal eagles. The target is AI or smart software companies. The legal eagles says, “AI, gray lady, AI.”
How do I know? Navigate to “New York Times Sues OpenAI, Microsoft over Millions of Articles Used to Train ChatGPT.” The write up reports:
The New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming the duo infringed the newspaper’s copyright by using its articles without permission to build ChatGPT and similar models. It is the first major American media outfit to drag the tech pair to court over the use of stories in training data.
The article points out:
However, to drive traffic to its site, the NYT also permits search engines to access and index its content. "Inherent in this value exchange is the idea that the search engines will direct users to The Times’s own websites and mobile applications, rather than exploit The Times’s content to keep users within their own search ecosystem." The Times added it has never permitted anyone – including Microsoft and OpenAI – to use its content for generative AI purposes. And therein lies the rub. According to the paper, it contacted Microsoft and OpenAI in April 2023 to deal with the issue amicably. It stated bluntly: "These efforts have not produced a resolution."
I think this means that the NYT used online search services to generate visibility, access, and revenue. However, it did not expect, understand, or consider that when a system indexes content, that content is used for other search services. Am I right? A doorway works two ways. The NYT wants it to work one way only. I may be off base, but the NYT is aggrieved because it did not understand the direction of AI research which has been chugging along for 50 years.
What do smart systems require? Information. Where do companies get content? From online sources accessible via a crawler. How long has this practice been chugging along? The early 1990s, even earlier if one considers text and command line only systems. Plus the NYT tried its own online service and failed. Then it hooked up with LexisNexis, only to pull out of the deal because the “real” news was worth more than LexisNexis would pay. Then the NYT spun up its own indexing service. Next the NYT dabbled in another online service. Plus the outfit acquired About.com. (Where did those writers get that content?” I know the answer, but does the Gray Lady remember?)
Now with the success of another generation of software which the Gray Lady overlooked, did not understand, or blew off because it was dealing with high school management methods in its newsroom — now the Gray Lady has let loose the legal eagles.
What do I make of the NYT and online? Here are the conclusions I reached working on the Business Dateline database and then as an advisor to one of the NYT’s efforts to distribute the “real” news to hotels and steam ships via facsimile:
- Newspapers are not very good at software. Hey, those Linotype machines were killers, but the XyWrite software and subsequent online efforts have demonstrated remarkable ways to spend money and progress slowly.
- The smart software crowd is not in touch with the thought processes of those in senior management positions in publishing. When the groups try to find common ground, arguments over who pays for lunch are more common than a deal.
- Legal disputes are expensive. Many of those engaged reach some type of deal before letting a judge or a jury decide which side is the winner. Perhaps the NYT is confident that a jury of its peers will find the evil AI outfits guilty of a range of heinous crimes. But maybe not? Is the NYT a risk taker? Who knows. But the NYT will pay some hefty legal bills as it rushes to do battle.
Net net: I find the NYT’s efforts following a basic game plan. Ask for money. Learn that the money offered is less than the value the NYT slaps on its “real” news. The smart software outfit does what it has been doing. The NYT takes legal action. The lawyer engage. As the fees stack up, the idea that a deal is needed makes sense.
The NYT will do a deal, declare victory, and go back to creating “real” news. Sigh. Why? Microsoft has more money and can tie up the matter in court until Hell freezes over in my opinion. If the Gray Lady prevails, chalk up a win. But the losers can just up their cash offer, and the Gray Lady will smile a happy smile.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
