Analyzing News Publishers' Critiques of Google's Reviewed Claim

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Analyzing News Publishers' Critiques of Google's Reviewed Claim Highly Partisan and Blatantly Wrong: Analyzing News Publishers’ Critiques of Google’s Reviewed Claims Emma Lurie Eni Mustafaraj School of Information Department of Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Wellesley College emma [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Google’s reviewed claims feature was an early attempt to incorporate additional credibility signals from fact-checking onto the search results page. The feature, which appeared when users searched for the name of a subset of news publishers, was criticized by dozens of publishers for its errors and alleged anti- conservative bias. By conducting an audit of news publisher search results and focusing on the critiques of publishers, we find that there is a lack of consensus between fact-checking Figure 1: The SERP of The Daily Caller with the re- ecosystem stakeholders that may be important viewed claims feature circled as it appeared in January to address in future iterations of public facing 2018. Reviewed Claims component contained fact- fact-checking tools. In particular, we find that checks of articles produced by that news publisher. a lack of transparency coupled with a lack of consensus on what makes a fact-check relevant to a news article led to the breakdown of re- to explore both conceptual misunderstandings be- viewed claims. tween stakeholders as well as inconsistencies aris- ing from the technical implementation of the fea- 1 Introduction ture. In November 2017, as part of an expanded effort The online fact-checking ecosystem is a com- to provide users with context about news publish- plex sociotechnical system that includes technol- ers, Google released reviewed claims (see Figure 1 ogy platforms, news publishers, fact-checking or- and 2). The reviewed claims feature displayed ganizations, and online information seekers. As third-party fact-checks about content produced by platforms try to limit harmful misinformation on a subset of news publishers. This feature was pub- their platform and fact-checkers work to increase licized as a meaningful aid to information seekers the reach of their fact-check articles, there have to identify misinformation.3 This is one of several been a number of collaborations, some of which ways that Google tried to highlight fact-checks in 1 are ongoing, and others that can be considered search results, in accordance with best practices in 2 failed experiments. We focus on one “failed” ex- media literacy (Wineburg and McGrew, 2017). periment, that of Google’s reviewed claims. Fo- However, several news publishers complained cusing on the breakdown (Mulligan and Griffin, about this feature in January 2018. They al- 2018; Akrich, 1992; Bucher, 2017) or failure of leged that Google was displaying partisan bias and a specific feature like reviewed claims enables us claimed that several of the fact-checks listed in 1https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism- their reviewed claims components were not rele- news/building-trust-online-partnering-international-fact- vant to the associated content. Soon after, Google checking-network/ 2https://medium.com/facebook-design/ 3https://www.blog.google/products/ designing-against-misinformation- search/learn-more-about-publishers- e5846b3aa1e2 google/ 64 Proceedings of the 2020 Truth and Trust Online (TTO 2020), pages 64–72, Virtual, October 16-17, 2020. scope of the the RC feature and 2) a more fo- cused and qualitative thematic analysis of 45 on- line news articles about the reviewed claims fea- ture. Our major takeaway from this case study is that the implementation of algorithmic solutions in support of fact-checking is a complex process that Figure 2: The Reviewed Claim feature attributes this requires and deserves the kind of transparency that claim to The Daily Caller. However, the PolitiFact fact- is so valued by the fact-checking community. Our check does not mention Daily Caller. This is an exam- findings contribute by expanding the conversation ple of an algorithmically assigned fact-check. around the efficacy of fact-checking interventions in the informational ecosystem. removed reviewed claims from the search engine results page (SERP), citing “bugs” in the feature’s 2 Auditing reviewed claims implementation.4 To situate publishers’ claims about the reviewed Reviewed claims (RC) is a worthwhile case claims feature, we report our findings from a Jan- study for several reasons. First, RC is an ex- uary 2018 audit of news publisher SERPs. In sum- ample of a major platform using fact-checks as mary, we identify 59 publisher names that dis- a source level credibility signal (i.e. displaying played a RC tab when their names were searched. fact-checks for publishers not individual articles) These RC tabs were collected incidentally in a for information seekers. Researchers (Wineb- larger audit of the state of partisan and unreliable urg et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018) have called news publisher SERPs. While our data collection for greater context and information cues for in- was not designed to be an exhaustive list of pub- formation seekers to evaluate the the credibility lishers with a RC tab, it does provide the most of surfaced content. Second, purportedly with- complete picture of the reviewed claims feature out informing fact-checking organizations, news to date. In Table 1, we report the 59 publish- publishers, or information seekers, Google lever- ers with the reviewed claims tab, accompanied by aged automated fact-checking techniques. Auto- their bias/accuracy label from BuzzFeed News or mated fact-checking, which uses algorithms to in- Media Bias Fact-check. While we find that more crease the scale and reach of fact-checks, raises publishers on the “right” had RC tabs, there were additional questions about the values, such as a 5 more “left” sites than what was alleged by conser- commitment to transparency that undergird fact- vative publishers. checking. Third, while publishers often raised Our manual examination of the 171 unique fact- poorly supported claims of anti-conservative bias, checks attributed to the 59 publishers leads us to publishers also raised substantive concerns about conclude that Google used an algorithm to match particular stories that were surfaced in the re- existing fact-checks (that did not name the pub- viewed claims panel. These are of particular inter- lisher) to articles by that publisher. This prac- est in this paper as they offer the opportunity for tice is called claim matching and is an automated various stakeholders to build deeper understand- fact-checking technique that matches articles or ing of the challenges that will confront future au- statements (i.e. claims) to existing fact-checks. tomated fact-checking features. The following re- The use of this method is significant because search question guides our work: what examples Google did not disclose the use of automated fact- and issues did publishers raise to contest the re- checking in its documentation7 8 about the feature. viewed claims feature? We explore this research question by 1) a data 2.1 Methods: Auditing RC collection effort6 that measured the prevalence and In January 2018, as part of an audit of news pub- 4https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/ lisher SERPs, we discovered that 59 publishers 2018/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-for- google-wrongly-appending-a-fact-check- claims to-the-daily-caller/ 7https://support.google.com/websearch/ 5https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/answer/7568277?hl=en know-more/the-commitments-of-the-code- 8https://www.blog.google/products/ of-principles search/learn-more-about-publishers- 6https://github.com/emmalurie/reviewed- google/ 65 List of websites to which Google assigned a reviewed claims tab Bias or Accuracy (ordered by Alexa Rank) Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, WND, The Gateway Pundit, The Federalist, Free Republic, The Conservative Tree House, OAN Network, Big League Politics, The Political Insider, Frontpage Magazine, American Greatness, American Renaissance, Bearing Arms, Red State Watcher, Right Truthfeed, 100 Percent Fed Up, Freedom Outpost, Commentary Magazine, The Millennium Report, VDARE, Sparta Report, En Volve, Conservative Fighters, Silence is Consent, America’s Freedom Fighters, Freedom Daily, American News, American Conservative Herald, The New York Evening. Upworthy, Palmer Report, Democratic Underground, Counterpunch, Rightwingwatch, Bipartisan Report, True Activist, OpEd News, American Left Herald Tribune, Occupy Democrats, Egberto Willies, If You Only News, American News X, Resistance Report Zero Hedge, Before It’s News, Natural News, Above Top Secret, Collective Conspiracy / Evolution, Your News Wire, Investment Watch Blog, Awareness Act, Activist Pseudoscience / Post, Renegade Tribune, The Common Sense Show, Fellowship of the minds, Fake news Intellihub, 21st Century Wire Table 1: The list of all 59 websites with a reviewed claims (RC) tab in our January 2018 dataset, grouped by political bias or factual accuracy. The labels come from BuzzFeed or Media Bias/Fact Check. contained a reviewed claims component in their might be under counting the news publishers with SERP. These 1,150 publisher SERPs were sourced a knowledge panel. For established, well-known from prominent aggregated lists in the research publishers, Google correctly inferred the news and media literacy community.9 10 11 12 13 The publisher website. combined list of websites was designed to be a Each RC tab contained links to the fact-check comprehensive survey of active partisan or unre- and original article (see Figure 2). The first author liable U.S. publishers in late 2017. In total, the manually reviewed the 171 unique fact-checks that aggregated dataset amounts to unique 1,150 web- appeared on the 59 RC tabs to extract: 1) the site domain names. ClaimReview markup and 2) the mentions of all We use Selenium, a web browser automation news publishers and URLs identified as claimants tool, to issue queries to Google search. The in the fact-check article. queries sent to the browser were the domain names without the extension (e.g. “dailycaller” from 2.2 Results: Auditing RC “dailycaller.com”).
Recommended publications
  • Sociotechnical Systems and Ethics in the Large
    Sociotechnical Systems and Ethics in the Large Amit K. Chopra Munindar P. Singh Lancaster University North Carolina State University Lancaster LA1 4WA, UK Raleigh, NC 27695-8206, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract question has inspired various versions of “do no harm to hu- mans” maxims, from Asimov to Bostrom and Yudkowsky Advances in AI techniques and computing platforms have (2014). And, partly this interest stems from imagining that triggered a lively and expanding discourse on ethical decision-making by autonomous agents. Much recent work agents are deliberative entities who will make choices much in AI concentrates on the challenges of moral decision mak- in the same way humans do: faced with a situation that de- ing from a decision-theoretic perspective, and especially the mands deliberation, an agent will line up its choices and representation of various ethical dilemmas. Such approaches make the best one that is also the most ethical. The trol- may be useful but in general are not productive because moral ley problem, a moral dilemma that has been the subject of decision making is as context-driven as other forms of deci- extensive philosophical discussion, has been discussed ex- sion making, if not more. In contrast, we consider ethics not tensively in the context of self-driving vehicles (Bonnefon, from the standpoint of an individual agent but of the wider Shariff, and Rahwan 2016). sociotechnical systems (STS) in which the agent operates. Concurrently, there has been an expanding body of work Our contribution in this paper is the conception of ethical STS in the broad AI tradition that investigates designing and governance founded on that takes into account stakeholder verifying, not individual agents, but sociotechnical systems values, normative constraints on agents, and outcomes (states of the STS) that obtain due to actions taken by agents.
    [Show full text]
  • Tucker Carlson
    Connecting You with the World's Greatest Minds Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson is the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, airing on primetime on FOX, and founder of The Daily Caller, one of the largest and fastest growing news sites in the country. Carlson was previously the co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend. He joined FOX from MSNBC, where he hosted several nightly programs. Previously, he was also the co-host of Crossfire on CNN, as well the host of a weekly public affairs program on PBS. A longtime newspaper and magazine writer, Carlson has reported from around the world, including dispatches from Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon and Vietnam. He has been a columnist for New York magazine and Reader's Digest. Carlson began his journalism career at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper in Little Rock. His most recent book is entitled, Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News. He appeared on the third season of ABC’s Dancing with the Stars. In this penetrating look at today's political climate, Tucker Carlson takes audiences behind closed doors, offering a candid, up-to-the-moment analysis of events as they unfold. From a look at Congress and the agenda ahead for the next Administration, to behind-the-scenes stories from his time following Donald Trump and his campaign during the 2016 race for the White House, you can always count on Tucker for a witty, informative and frank take on the future of the Republican party and all things political..
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Page 1 “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Mark Twain’s quote is more relevant than ever in times of online communication, where information or misinformation, bundled in bits and bytes, streams around the earth within seconds. SUMMARY This UNICEF working paper aims to track and analyse online anti-vaccination sentiment in social media networks by examining conversations across social media in English, Russian, Romanian and Polish. The findings support the assumption that parents actively use social networks and blogs to inform their decisions on vaccinating their children. The paper proposes a research model that detects and clusters commonly-used keywords and intensity of user interaction. The end goal is the development of targeted and efficient engagement strategies for health and communication experts in the field as well as for partner organisations. DISCLAIMER UNICEF working papers aim to facilitate greater exchange of knowledge and stimulate analytical discussion on an issue. This text has not been edited to official publications standards. Extracts from this paper may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement. For the purposes of this research, no personal data has been extracted and stored for data collection and analysis. Page 2 CONTENT 1. Rationale 4 2. Introduction 5 2.1 Social Media: the conversation shift 5 2.2 Social Media: Fertile ground for anti- 5 vaccination sentiment 2.3 Social Media Monitoring 7 2.4 Influencers 8 3. Research Objectives 9 4. Methodology 11 4.1 Descriptive and Explorative Research Design 11 4.2 Data Collection 12 4.3 Limitations 13 4.4 Ethical Considerations 13 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Interventions Limit the Influence of Fake News About Climate Change on Facebook
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`+':"$(-7-:"&(9'%-(;%$'$%"2'"'9%$-%9'1='
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data
    S. HRG. 115–683 FACEBOOK, SOCIAL MEDIA PRIVACY, AND THE USE AND ABUSE OF DATA JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 10, 2018 Serial No. J–115–40 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Nov 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\DOCS\37801.TXT JACKIE FACEBOOK, SOCIAL MEDIA PRIVACY, AND THE USE AND ABUSE OF DATA VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Nov 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\DOCS\37801.TXT JACKIE S. HRG. 115–683 FACEBOOK, SOCIAL MEDIA PRIVACY, AND THE USE AND ABUSE OF DATA JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 10, 2018 Serial No. J–115–40 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–801 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Nov 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\37801.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA
    [Show full text]
  • Camp Perry Nationals Service Rifle
    August 2021 Camp Perry Nationals Service Rifle The Wisconsin Juniors travelled to Ohio to compete at the National Trophy Rifle Matches at Camp Perry. We had one junior James L making the Presidents 100. James accomplished the 3 big service rifle goals in 1 year. He became a distinguished rifleman, made High master, and made the cut for the Presidents 100. Congrats James! In the National Trophy Individual match, we had 3 juniors make the cut for leg points. David H fired a nice 488-19x, first year junior Anna B was right behind him with a 485- 13x, and Thomas “TK” K fired a 482-12x. Congrats juniors on receiving leg points towards becoming distinguished. Thomas M. firing a 497-25x. This score would have been a new national record, but another junior beat Thomas by a point. Congrats Thomas! That’s some hard holding with a borrowed upper. In the 2-person junior team match, Wisconsin Juniors had 3 teams place in the top 20 and receive a freedoms fire medal. Team Mozzarella came in 13th place with a 962-26x. Team members were Sam C and James L. coached by Spencer M. Team Colby came in 9th place with a 968-19x. Team members were Anna B and David H. Mike S was the coach. Rounding out our teams in the top 20 was Team Cheddar in 2nd place. Team Cheddar fired a would-be national record score of 980-38x. Team members were Thomas M and Thomas K. Coach was Kaleb “Big Cheese” H. Congrats to all three teams! A big thank you to all the coaches, parents and volunteers that make this all possible! We had a total of nine juniors competing this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1905.12908V1 [Cs.SI] 30 May 2019 with an Assortativity Coefficient of R = .813
    Algorithmic Detection and Analysis of Vaccine-Denialist Sentiment Clusters in Social Networks Bjarke Mønsteda, Sune Lehmanna,∗ a Technical University of Denmark, Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark Abstract Vaccination rates are decreasing in many areas of the world, and outbreaks of preventable diseases tend to follow in areas with particular low rates. Much research has been devoted to improving our understanding of the motivations behind vaccination decisions and the effects of various types of information offered to skeptics, no large-scale study of the structure of online vaccination discourse have been conducted. Here, we offer an approach to quantitatively study the vaccine discourse in an online system, exemplified by Twitter. We use train a deep neural network to predict tweet vaccine sentiments, surpassing state-of-the-art performance, at- taining two-class accuracy of 90:4%, and a three-class F1 of 0:762. We identify profiles which consistently produce strongly anti- and pro-vaccine content. We find that strongly anti-vaccine profiles primarily post links to Youtube, and commercial sites that make money on selling alternative health products, repre- senting a conflict of interest. We also visualize the network of repeated mutual interactions of actors in the vaccine discourse and find that it is highly stratified, arXiv:1905.12908v1 [cs.SI] 30 May 2019 with an assortativity coefficient of r = :813. Keywords: Vaccination, Machine Learning, Social Networks, Natural Language Processing ∗Corresponding author Email address: [email protected] (Sune Lehmann) Preprint submitted to Arxiv May 31, 2019 1. Introduction The effectiveness of vaccinations is highly dependent on a reliably high im- munization rate in the populace.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronavirus Misinformation Weekly Briefing 18-05-2020
    COVID-19 Series COMPROP Coronavirus Misinformation Weekly Briefing 18-05-2020 Social Media Misinformation on German Intelligence Reports Coronavirus Misinformation Weekly Briefing 18-05-2020 Hubert Au, Jonathan Bright, Philip N. Howard SUMMARY Given the evolving nature of the coronavirus pandemic—and public understanding of the crisis—we provide a weekly briefing about the spread of coronavirus misinformation across multiple social media platforms. For the seven days prior to 14-05-2020 we find: • Of all the junk news that social media users engaged with last week, 33% of it came from state-backed news agencies, and 83% of engagement with state backed agencies involves media outlets from Russia and China. • In total, articles produced by junk health news sources were engaged with four million times this week. On average, articles from state-backed media sources nonetheless stimulated the most engagement. • Thematically, prominent junk health news narratives this week included (1) misinformation around German intelligence reports alleging the WHO withholding information on Chinese request, and (2) attacks on Democrats over the HEROES Act. and the trends for five prominent English-language INTRODUCTION sources of credible news and information; two from the Using an actively curated list of major sources of junk UK and three from the US: BBC News, CNN, The health news and state-backed sources, we track the Guardian, The New York Times and The Washington spread of misleading, polarizing, and inflammatory Post. coronavirus content on social media. Sources from state-backed media include information operations and The “social distribution network” of an outlet is the sum editorially controlled national media organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Proceedings of the Thirteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2019) Different Spirals of Sameness: A Study of Content Sharing in Mainstream and Alternative Media Benjamin D. Horne,* Jeppe Nørregaard,y Sibel Adalı* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute*, Technical University of Denmarky [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Vos, and Shoemaker 2009; Allcott and Gentzkow 2017; Mele et al. 2017). Thus, we may have a more diverse set of In this paper, we analyze content sharing between news news to read than in years past, but the standards of quality sources in the alternative and mainstream media using a dataset of 713K articles and 194 sources. We find that content have wavered, creating a new set of concerns. sharing happens in tightly formed communities, and these This rise in low-quality and potentially malicious news communities represent relatively homogeneous portions of producers has been the focus of many recent studies such the media landscape. Through a mix-method analysis, we as those focusing on detecting false content (Potthast et al. find several primary content sharing behaviors. First, we find 2017; Popat et al. 2016; Singhania, Fernandez, and Rao that the vast majority of shared articles are only shared with 2017; Horne et al. 2018; Baly et al. 2018). Some other stud- similar news sources (i.e. same community). Second, we find ies have focused on the tactics used to spread low-quality that despite these echo-chambers of sharing, specific sources, news, such as the use of social bots (Shao et al. 2017) such as The Drudge Report, mix content from both main- stream and conspiracy communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Research & Social Science
    Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101617 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss Review Sociotechnical agendas: Reviewing future directions for energy and climate T research ⁎ Benjamin K. Sovacoola, , David J. Hessb, Sulfikar Amirc, Frank W. Geelsd, Richard Hirshe, Leandro Rodriguez Medinaf, Clark Millerg, Carla Alvial Palavicinoh, Roopali Phadkei, Marianne Ryghaugj, Johan Schoth, Antti Silvastj, Jennie Stephensk, Andy Stirlingl, Bruno Turnheimm, Erik van der Vleutenn, Harro van Lenteo, Steven Yearleyp a University of Sussex, United Kingdom and Aarhus University, Denmark b Vanderbilt University, United States c Nanyang Technological University, Singapore d The University of Manchester, United Kingdom e Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, United States f Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Mexico g Arizona State University, United States h Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands i Macalester College, United States j Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway k Northeastern University, United States l University of Sussex, United Kingdom m Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés, France n Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands o Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands p The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The field of science and technology studies (STS) has introduced and developed a “sociotechnical” perspective Science and technology studies that has been taken up by many disciplines and areas of inquiry. The aims and objectives of this study are Sociotechnical systems threefold: to interrogate which sociotechnical concepts or tools from STS are useful at better understanding Science technology and society energy-related social science, to reflect on prominent themes and topics within those approaches, and to identify Sociology of scientific knowledge current research gaps and directions for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Tow Center for Digital Journalism CONSERVATIVE A Tow/Knight Report NEWSWORK A Report on the Values and Practices of Online Journalists on the Right Anthony Nadler, A.J. Bauer, and Magda Konieczna Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Boundaries and Tensions Within the Online Conservative News Field 15 Training, Standards, and Practices 41 Columbia Journalism School Conservative Newswork 3 Executive Summary Through much of the 20th century, the U.S. news diet was dominated by journalism outlets that professed to operate according to principles of objectivity and nonpartisan balance. Today, news outlets that openly proclaim a political perspective — conservative, progressive, centrist, or otherwise — are more central to American life than at any time since the first journalism schools opened their doors. Conservative audiences, in particular, express far less trust in mainstream news media than do their liberal counterparts. These divides have contributed to concerns of a “post-truth” age and fanned fears that members of opposing parties no longer agree on basic facts, let alone how to report and interpret the news of the day in a credible fashion. Renewed popularity and commercial viability of openly partisan media in the United States can be traced back to the rise of conservative talk radio in the late 1980s, but the expansion of partisan news outlets has accelerated most rapidly online. This expansion has coincided with debates within many digital newsrooms. Should the ideals journalists adopted in the 20th century be preserved in a digital news landscape? Or must today’s news workers forge new relationships with their publics and find alternatives to traditional notions of journalistic objectivity, fairness, and balance? Despite the centrality of these questions to digital newsrooms, little research on “innovation in journalism” or the “future of news” has explicitly addressed how digital journalists and editors in partisan news organizations are rethinking norms.
    [Show full text]