Mike, thanks for this notice. I usually stick witth the Washington Post, but I think I’ll be checking here regularly from now on. I like the disclaimer at the bottom of the page “This page was generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. No humans were harmed or even used in the creation of this page.”
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post blew a gasket contemplating the new Google news service. There is a discussion to be made about whether an automatic news aggregator is a helpful tool, but trying to frame it as a people vs. computers argument is just no help at all. It’s not meant to replace humans — after all, the service relies on editors and journalists to gather and publish the news it presents. Journalists can get so shrill sometimes, especially when the issue is their turf.
For a more balanced comment on Google news, see Lee Dambert’s column in the International Herald Tribune.
Mike, thanks for this notice. I usually stick witth the Washington Post, but I think I’ll be checking here regularly from now on. I like the disclaimer at the bottom of the page “This page was generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. No humans were harmed or even used in the creation of this page.”
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post blew a gasket contemplating the new Google news service. There is a discussion to be made about whether an automatic news aggregator is a helpful tool, but trying to frame it as a people vs. computers argument is just no help at all. It’s not meant to replace humans — after all, the service relies on editors and journalists to gather and publish the news it presents. Journalists can get so shrill sometimes, especially when the issue is their turf.
For a more balanced comment on Google news, see Lee Dambert’s column in the International Herald Tribune.