How can a programmer help The New York Times report stories?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I wasn't really expecting this listing to reach the front page — but I can understand that it did.
There's been so much energy / handwringing / chatter in recent months about our increasingly post-factual era, governments' relationships with journalism, and possible technical remedies, that I thought this new team (which has some very sharp people on it) might strike a chord here.
> Thank you for your interest in Interactive News. We do not have open positions at this time but we would like to stay in contact with you as our hiring needs evolve.
Edit: Bowers says that he's fixed it now.
Linking to related stories is a temporary fix, but a standard timeline would be better. It should even motivate people to contribute to "follow-ups" on stories. Report what happened to the affected parties, where are they now, etc...
This is in the interest of keeping people informed and engaged. Instead of endlessly chasing "breaking news"
Take the "Oroville Dam" story for example. I would love to be able to subscribe to a timeline of updates as more unfold. A year from now, will there be a story about how the dam was fixed? How government money was spent? etc...
Or whatever happened to those girls who were locked in that guy's basement? Whatever happened to them? Where are they now?
I recently purchased the domain cnnisfake.news to expose all the times the media releases a fake story. This thread and posts have inspired me to get it working!!
I also wanted to add in user, publication and reporter 'leanings' by having a mechanism where users could say that they thought a story was left/right/neutral. The act of voting would count as a push having the affect of slightly moving the publication and reporter in one direction and the voter in another. I would then use an ELO type metric so a user who was very far in one direction wouldn't have the same impact as a user more in the center.
That's a really good idea. Maybe we can all collab and make this.
http://digiday.com/media/two-years-vox-com-reconsiders-card-...
https://blog.medium.com/welcome-to-series-a-new-type-of-stor...
Every article should have machine readable metadata including:
* The author
* The geographic and political point(s) or region(s) discussed in the article
* URLs of related content (serious news outlets need to fight their desire to keep the user from leaving the site)
* A boolean that indicates if the article uses anonymous sources (tools could then filter out such articles when desired)
* Implicit version control showing each published revision of an article and who made the change
That last one made me laugh. With traditional print, you'd have a newer version of an article (say the afternoon edition) highlight the changes or the newspaper would publish a correction in a separate section of the paper.
You'd think with modern technology there would be a better way of presenting that type of information but it seems like the real response from the publishing industry has been to simply perform ninja edits and hope nobody notices.
http://microformats.org/wiki/hnews
Support this. ALL MEDIA, please.
Actually, I'd love to see Google require this (and possibly, additions), for qualifications for Google News listings.
Most especially: reputation tracking of reporters, authors, editors, and publishers, most especially on accuracy (inclusive of corrections, which reduce but don't eliminate error penalties).
I'm pretty sure I do not want my search engine to assign some "reputation" values. Instead, I'd prefer people to get educated about their news sources and make their own choices.
I'd like to see those have some foundation in truth and fact rather than SEO inflation.
The problem is not the media, but our consumer attitude to news: Only a few track down the source of a news and read the actual ticker message or scientific paper. Even fewer understand the background of a media outlet, its tone/agenda and business relations.
In your Utopos the "truths and facts" would not be your own, it would be those of whoever controls the reputation database. You can watch a system like this unfold in China[1] - and because it is China, we all agree without a second thought that this is a tool for oppression...
[1] https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/plan...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Any reputation or recommendation system is subject to gaming. The questions are: what fundamentally does it promote, what are its internal incentive structures, and is it fundamentally trustable.
You don't get away from any of those questions (or concerns) no matter what you replace it with. Aiming at truth itself strikes me as vastly preferable to the extant model.
Understanding that truth itself can be imprecise, and building considerations of this (say: through fuzzing or randomising SERP) into the system also helps.
What significant amounts of research, ranging from highly formal to informal, have show, is that the lack of accountability by reptuation has lead to numerous actors hijacking our epistemic systems. Lauren Weinstein, Pew, Snopes, ProPublica, and others, have reported on this at length.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...
Jobs like this are about the input of a story, not the output. Ensuring that a health story is backed up by thorough analysis of government data. Or a story created entirely from scratch because a bot noticed an uptick in some particular dataset.
That has the potential to be really powerful journalism. Metadata isn't unimportant, but it's not more important than the story itself.
(IIRC, the NYT already has APIs that fulfill almost all of your requests, incidentally)
Really? I poked around and just now registered for an API key. I see no documentation more detailed than "Data is returned in JSON". I'll keep looking.
IIRC it's the Article Search API - it has a field named "fl" that controls what fields are returned, but it now the documentation doesn't seem to specify what fields it can return.
> Metadata isn't unimportant, but it's not more important than the story itself.
I see redefining what a modern reader should expect of serious journalism as a forcing function that would prompt the writer/editor to provide that data. It would affect how they report and provide better input.
I'm serious about wanting an attribute for unnamed sources. I would love for NYT and The Economist to have a preference setting where I can tell it "don't show me articles which use unnamed sources".
You can still have a masterpiece newspaper article without metadata dripping all over it, but no amount of metadata is going to fix shoddy journalism. Fortunately, the metadata stuff isn't rocket science.
What is rocket science, however, is computational journalism. I think the NYT is onto something here. What happens when you pump up great journalists with the ability to mine data, create visualizations, and explore complex relationships that are intractable without computational assistance?
* actively advertising open source contributions
* not requiring endless whiteboarding sessions
* wanting to review past projects as a large part of the interview
Their open source blog is also quite interesting: https://open.blogs.nytimes.com
Bravo NYTimes. Proving again that you get it.
That said, we use a lot of JavaScript, a fair amount of R, a medium amount of Ruby, some Python, and occasionally Go. Stats skills are a plus, as are database skills, as are design chops.
One of the most fun and different aspects about writing code in a newsroom is the extremely different timescales that are involved compared to normal programming.
If you think it sounds like fun to sit down in front of a blank page of HTML with a fresh government dataset, RStudio, a copy of D3, a cup of coffee and 36 hours to see how good of an exploration and explanation you can come up with, this might be the job for you.