Geeeeez. As if computers input doesn’t come from flawed - and biased - human beings. One bad bug and you could also cause a huge and lasting problem. AI isn’t ready for this anyway. To bastardize Jurassic Park, they’re so busy trying to see if they can do something, they’re not considering if they should.
The real person with a bias problem is the owner of the LA Times, Patrick Soon Shiong! I hope he discloses any funding he receives from the incoming administration for his pet projects, looks pretty obvious he is trying to curry favor with the incoming wannabe dictator.
Robot umpires in baseball come to mind. Or my personal favorite: the robot confessional from the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper."
The L.A. Times newsroom unionized in January 2018. The good doctor bought the paper in Feburary 2018. In October 2019 the newsroom union (guild) and the paper reached tentative agreement on a three-year labor contract. In January 2024 newsroom guild member staged a one-day unfair labor practces walkout. According to the website of the News Guild of the Communications Workers of America, the walkout occurred after Times management announced plans to "imminently lay off a significant number of journalists and asked the Guild to gut seniority protections in the union contract so they have vastly more freedom to pick whom to lay off."
My gut, not my AI, tells me there's ulterior motives behind this push to AI. Like maybe more layoffs and maybe even a move to bust the union.
Fun fact: The good doctor, like Elon Musk, is a native South African. According to his Wikipedia bio, Dr. Soon-Shiong is worth $6.2 billion. "He has been called the richest man in Los Angeles and one of the wealthiest doctors in the world."
This is why I’m skeptical of news aggregators such as Ground News, which sponsors a variety of edutainment video creators. It touts its origins from a former NASA engineer, but it’s not clear whether people in the hard sciences or the TEM fields always have the best opinions on Earth, especially when we’re talking about how societies are run and nations navigate all sorts of opinions. They’re somewhat convincing in saying they have a shortcut in helping us verify the news ourselves, but again, that’s a lot of our hard work as readers left out.
Also, I couldn’t figure out when I first heard about such aggregators whether it was humans or AI scanning the text and doing the bias ratings day in day out. Apparently Ground News has 18 staffers, so that means AI is doing the legwork unless they have secret contractors overseas.
Lord. It never stops. The only place the gimmick of a "bias meter" belongs, IMO, (if anywhere) is on the Opinion pages (maybe) to indicate the direction of each piece for the slower, lower information reader.
-AI will likely present items, like the moon landing denial, as a "legitimate alternative view".
-Computational neutrality doesn't equate to factual accuracy.
-Platforms may prioritize engagement over truth.
Potential Consequences:
-Erosion of scientific consensus.
-Normalization of misinformation.
-Undermining critical thinking.
Journalists like Jacob, Beschloss, and Sullivan have warned about this phenomenon, but AI could systematically undermine decades of careful fact-checking and scientific communication.
The moon landing conspiracy illustrates this danger perfectly: 5-7% of Americans hold a demonstrably false belief, yet AI might present this as a credible alternative narrative during space coverage.
This smacks of censorship more than anything. I want stories written based on facts, and I want the opinions of sourced experts - not biased AI paid for by a billionaire. Exactly why I dropped my NYT and WaPo subscriptions - I am not interested in billionaires' opinions of what the news should say. Opinion pieces should clearly state the author, and what their credentials are. I can read the piece with that in mind. This sounds rather like the LATimes owner is turning the paper into a vanity press, instead of the highly respected news source it once was. Not unlike the way Musk bought Twitter for the purpose of destroying it.
Please allow me to thank you for exposing the disingenuous intentions of the muddle-headed owner of the LA Times to turn this once prominent national paper into a print version of Facebook.
At the same time, please allow me to apologize on behalf of intelligent people everywhere that you are having to spend your time digging into this insanity.
This owner's idea about having AI provide a counterbalance to items in the LA Times also proves my larger point about the abject failure of our educational system: namely, that someone can turn out to be a brilliant cancer researcher or engineer, but not have an iota of enlightenment, common sense or emotional intelligence.
Has anyone here ever used https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ ? I've found it helpful, because yes, bias is something that can be measured. However, the Soon-Shiong idea of an "alternative story" to present "both sides" is worthy of a Twilight Zone episode. It's absolutely chilling and speaks of a throttled press, opposite of a free press dedicated to uncovering the truth . . . The truth is not a "both sides" kind of thing. Yes, of course there is nuance. Not all is black and white. But the future imagined by Soon-Shiong in this truly stupid idea is a totalitarian nightmare.
Would welcome a clarification: How do you feel about independent entities calling out examples of “bias”? Like what NewsGuard is doing. Is the problem the AI or that “bias” monitoring is fruitless by definition?
I am not a fan of NewsGuard. I believe all journalists carry biases and it would be best for them to simply declare those biases. The goal shouldn't be "objectivity" (which is impossible) but professional journalists citing documented facts and interviewing people who know what they're talking about and then trying to draw fair conclusions. Responsible, fact-based journalism should be the goal. Treating all opinions or theories as legitimate is a surrender to the propagandists.
This immediately calls to mind Timothy Snyder's "do not obey in advance." To me, this bias monitor smacks of acquiescence and appeasement.
Agree, Carmen, except that if Siong is a MAGA supporter, he's not just obeying, he's encouraging.
Geeeeez. As if computers input doesn’t come from flawed - and biased - human beings. One bad bug and you could also cause a huge and lasting problem. AI isn’t ready for this anyway. To bastardize Jurassic Park, they’re so busy trying to see if they can do something, they’re not considering if they should.
What a shame. It's no longer a newspaper. I feel sorry for the people working there.
The real person with a bias problem is the owner of the LA Times, Patrick Soon Shiong! I hope he discloses any funding he receives from the incoming administration for his pet projects, looks pretty obvious he is trying to curry favor with the incoming wannabe dictator.
Morale in the LAT newsroom has cratered in last few months. The Guild put out a statement defending the staff and its work.
The doctor appears to not believe in the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm.”
I’d love to see the cancellation numbers for the LA Times after Litman left and wrote his excellent farewell message.
As a 40 year subscriber to the print edition I immediately cancelled.
AI bias meter… good grief.
Robot umpires in baseball come to mind. Or my personal favorite: the robot confessional from the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper."
The L.A. Times newsroom unionized in January 2018. The good doctor bought the paper in Feburary 2018. In October 2019 the newsroom union (guild) and the paper reached tentative agreement on a three-year labor contract. In January 2024 newsroom guild member staged a one-day unfair labor practces walkout. According to the website of the News Guild of the Communications Workers of America, the walkout occurred after Times management announced plans to "imminently lay off a significant number of journalists and asked the Guild to gut seniority protections in the union contract so they have vastly more freedom to pick whom to lay off."
My gut, not my AI, tells me there's ulterior motives behind this push to AI. Like maybe more layoffs and maybe even a move to bust the union.
Fun fact: The good doctor, like Elon Musk, is a native South African. According to his Wikipedia bio, Dr. Soon-Shiong is worth $6.2 billion. "He has been called the richest man in Los Angeles and one of the wealthiest doctors in the world."
I suspect that AI is becoming a reliable enshittification tool, rather than the boon it's touted as.
This is why I’m skeptical of news aggregators such as Ground News, which sponsors a variety of edutainment video creators. It touts its origins from a former NASA engineer, but it’s not clear whether people in the hard sciences or the TEM fields always have the best opinions on Earth, especially when we’re talking about how societies are run and nations navigate all sorts of opinions. They’re somewhat convincing in saying they have a shortcut in helping us verify the news ourselves, but again, that’s a lot of our hard work as readers left out.
Also, I couldn’t figure out when I first heard about such aggregators whether it was humans or AI scanning the text and doing the bias ratings day in day out. Apparently Ground News has 18 staffers, so that means AI is doing the legwork unless they have secret contractors overseas.
Lord. It never stops. The only place the gimmick of a "bias meter" belongs, IMO, (if anywhere) is on the Opinion pages (maybe) to indicate the direction of each piece for the slower, lower information reader.
AI's algorithmic design risks perpetuating dangerous false equivalencies by:
-Presenting conspiracy theories alongside factual information.
-Creating an illusion of a balanced perspective.
-Algorithmically amplifying fringe views.
Specific Risks:
-AI will likely present items, like the moon landing denial, as a "legitimate alternative view".
-Computational neutrality doesn't equate to factual accuracy.
-Platforms may prioritize engagement over truth.
Potential Consequences:
-Erosion of scientific consensus.
-Normalization of misinformation.
-Undermining critical thinking.
Journalists like Jacob, Beschloss, and Sullivan have warned about this phenomenon, but AI could systematically undermine decades of careful fact-checking and scientific communication.
The moon landing conspiracy illustrates this danger perfectly: 5-7% of Americans hold a demonstrably false belief, yet AI might present this as a credible alternative narrative during space coverage.
Very well stated.
But this is America where all billionaires and smart and can do whatever they want. Let the exodus begin.
This smacks of censorship more than anything. I want stories written based on facts, and I want the opinions of sourced experts - not biased AI paid for by a billionaire. Exactly why I dropped my NYT and WaPo subscriptions - I am not interested in billionaires' opinions of what the news should say. Opinion pieces should clearly state the author, and what their credentials are. I can read the piece with that in mind. This sounds rather like the LATimes owner is turning the paper into a vanity press, instead of the highly respected news source it once was. Not unlike the way Musk bought Twitter for the purpose of destroying it.
Please allow me to thank you for exposing the disingenuous intentions of the muddle-headed owner of the LA Times to turn this once prominent national paper into a print version of Facebook.
At the same time, please allow me to apologize on behalf of intelligent people everywhere that you are having to spend your time digging into this insanity.
This owner's idea about having AI provide a counterbalance to items in the LA Times also proves my larger point about the abject failure of our educational system: namely, that someone can turn out to be a brilliant cancer researcher or engineer, but not have an iota of enlightenment, common sense or emotional intelligence.
Has anyone here ever used https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ ? I've found it helpful, because yes, bias is something that can be measured. However, the Soon-Shiong idea of an "alternative story" to present "both sides" is worthy of a Twilight Zone episode. It's absolutely chilling and speaks of a throttled press, opposite of a free press dedicated to uncovering the truth . . . The truth is not a "both sides" kind of thing. Yes, of course there is nuance. Not all is black and white. But the future imagined by Soon-Shiong in this truly stupid idea is a totalitarian nightmare.
Yes this is a good site and thanks. What's depressing is it used to be very hard to detect bias. Now it's so common it can be "measured" : )
Would welcome a clarification: How do you feel about independent entities calling out examples of “bias”? Like what NewsGuard is doing. Is the problem the AI or that “bias” monitoring is fruitless by definition?
I am not a fan of NewsGuard. I believe all journalists carry biases and it would be best for them to simply declare those biases. The goal shouldn't be "objectivity" (which is impossible) but professional journalists citing documented facts and interviewing people who know what they're talking about and then trying to draw fair conclusions. Responsible, fact-based journalism should be the goal. Treating all opinions or theories as legitimate is a surrender to the propagandists.
"best for them to simply declare those biases" But they never do. Wonder why?
I'll answer my own question. Bias is something we work to overcome, not embrace.