Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Human Curation Sets Apple News Apart From Algorithm-Focused News Sources Like Google and Facebook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about spin free news.., does that exist anywhere? Just the unabridged facts. Or perhaps a facts section followed by two spin sections labelled as such ie “Left Wing Spin”, “Right Wing Spin”...
I’d be thrilled to see news that takes the human opinion out of the story.
I’d be thrilled to see news that takes the human opinion out of the story.
In a new report by The New York Times today, Apple let a reporter take a glimpse inside the human curation process of its Apple News service. The article looks into Apple's news strategy (which is focusing less on algorithm-led news curation like its rivals), the service's future integration with Texture magazine subscriptions, and its issues with ad revenue.
Providing context, the NYT explains how the rise of Google and Facebook came with news delivery that was driven in part by algorithms. While this enabled the companies to point users towards millions of articles, boosting clicks and shares and driving traffic to various sites, the process ended up sometimes emphasizing articles that were sensational, misleading, highly partisan, or simply false. Although both Facebook and Google have now highlighted methods to fight back against "fake news," some view it as too little too late, and now Apple is taking a different approach.
With Apple News, users can select the publishers they like the most, as well as interests like tech or entertainment, and Apple will surface relevant articles every day. The human curation aspect of Apple News comes on the app's main screen: every top article you see is hand selected every day by the company's editors. According to Apple News editor in chief Lauren Kern, "There is this deep understanding that a thriving free press is critical for an informed public, and an informed public is critical for a functioning democracy, and that Apple News can play a part in that."
Following the events of the 2016 presidential election and revelations about Russian spies using algorithm-focused news curation sites to spread misinformation, Apple "remained convinced of the benefits of people."
Kern joined Apple from New York Magazine, and now leads around 30 journalists located across Sydney, London, New York, and Silicon Valley. Among hundreds of pitches from various publishers, the team picks five stories that sit atop Apple News every day, the top two of which also appear in the Apple News widget.
In the interview, Kern explains that there are just some stories that don't pass "the smell test," which has led Apple to avoid covering certain events that were heavily shared across Google News, Facebook, and Twitter. In one example, Apple News did not run a story posted by ABC News concerning the Robert Mueller investigation. As an explanation, Kern explained that the Apple News team's methods can't be "baked into an algorithm."
The main concern brought up in regards to human editors are their potential bias toward certain political coverage. In response, Kern says that bias can be baked into an algorithm's code, and that humans offer far more subtly in the decision making process of sharing the news.
Some publishers remain concerned with Apple News' future, particularly because of Apple's ad revenue policies. For one, readers on Apple News stay inside of Apple's app for the most part, curbing ad revenue for the publisher of the article and limiting data from direct clicks to the sites. While publishers can sell ads on their stories in Apple News, most say the process is complicated and that advertiser interest was low because of the lack of consumer data.
Looking to the future, Apple next plans to integrate a magazine subscription service -- acquired through Texture -- into Apple News. When asked about Apple potentially reporting the news itself and not just curating it, Apple's chief of apps Roger Rosner said, "We don't talk about future plans, but that's certainly not what we set out to do." Asked for further clarification, Rosner responded, "Who knows?"
While concerns over ad revenue and the app's future remain, many publishers were positive about Apple News when asked about their opinion of the service. New York Magazine chief product officer Daniel Hallac noted that traffic from Apple News had doubled since last December, as Facebook dropped and Google remained the dominant source of the site's traffic. Looking at the growth, Hallac said that he's "optimistic about Apple News."
To read the full story, head over to The New York Times: "Apple's Radical Approach to News: Humans Over Machines"
Article Link: Human Curation Sets Apple News Apart From Algorithm-Focused News Sources Like Google and Facebook
They are as far as America. I’m not talking about the whole world. Germany has the FAZ and Süddeutsche Zeitung. France Le Monde, Spain El Pais, Italy Correire Della Serra. England The Times/FT.
If you think your entire online life isn't being curated ... you need to watch Tim Cooks speech at International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners ... we are all just lemmings
Surely you understand that all news that you have not personally witnessed comes through a human filter, and usually multiple humans. The alternative is to have no news and no societal memory of events.
That I can delegate some responsibility for sifting out the garbage from the vaguely accurate to someone else means I can spend some of my life doing something other than wallowing in the overwhelming sea of falsehoods and opinions that pose as news these days. That's the value in a service like Apple's or of any other reputable news source. If there are other services that would do the same, that'd be great.
So you didn't say, in post #7,
"First thing I did when using Apple News is block fake news MSM sources like NYT, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed, CNN, Times, etc."
It is the paper or record. When the people of 2118 want to get a picture of what was happening in 2018, this is what they will look at just as we would go in the NYT archives to see what was going on in 1918 or even as far back as 1851.
You can go to any main branch of a library and access NYT microfilm to see the original analog version. The NYPL’s main branch on 42th and 5th Ave. has the full archives.
It is pretty much exactly what he said. He said if you don’t have the New York Times and the Washington Post as sources for your articles, that you “Have no idea what is happening in the world“.... and are not “in the real world”.
Edit: he even replied to me saying I was correct... that they are the only primary sources. This makes me so sad.
Last edited:
Apple news replaces highly partisan algorithm with highly partisan NYT editor. And the millenial at the right too... yeah, I'll get my news by reading a spread of different sources on my own.
This discussion thread highlights the fundamental issue that no sources are free from bias. But there are obviously sources who strive to be so more than others, on various systemic levels. Regardless, no one should trust everything they read from whatever source without critical thought. We can across many platforms follow any specific sources or aggregators we want, but to me there is no argument for being so self-centered that we don't want to see what different biased sources report. Rather, i think it's a way to develop compassion for people in different biased thought landscapes and very informative to train our critical minds...
The closest you will get is a non-opinion piece from a centrist source. Unfortunately do to the corruption and dark money on the right side of the spectrum, most conservative leaning sources cannot be trusted to provide factual information.
I am highly skeptical of any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch except for the WSJ which caters to businessmen who have no time for false information. The Murdoch family also has way too much influence on the British and Australian press.
Wrong again. Go back and actually read the comment we are talking about. You're making a subtle but important misinterpretation of it.
On another note, I like how so many people in this thread seem to think that if a source says more negative things about something than positive things, or vice-versa, then that means they are biased and shouldn't be trusted. That's like saying a health magazine is biased for consistently saying smoking is bad. If something is largely bad, it's completely reasonable for a source to say mostly bad things about it. There's no logic in requiring an equal number of positive and negative voices about something.
I directly quoted him. And if I’m so wrong, why did he reply and say I was correct, that they are the only primary sources (in America he says).
Even if there were a bias-free algorithm, it could still be gamed. Microsoft created an "AI" chat-bot on Twitter a few years ago, and it quickly turned into a legitimate Nazi once 4chan got their hands on it.
Quoting him isn't the same as correctly understanding what he wrote. His comment wasn't saying that without those two specific sources, you can't know what's going on in the world. They later said that they feel that those two sources are some of the only ones in America (along with the WSJ), but that was after you made that claim. You misread his comment, accused him of something he didn't write, and then ended up, through happenstance, to be largely correct. What you're saying and what I'm saying are compatible.
You're also only correct if you're talking about America, but as has been said, there are lots of other primary sources. So while you're correct in mostly guessing their thoughts on primary sources in the U.S., your larger point is still off.
The best addition would be if they could make it to Poland.
Otherwise, it's just another service pumping the US-only Apple Bubble.
PS Yeah, I know there are some deviations towards the UK or other English speaking countries.
Otherwise, it's just another service pumping the US-only Apple Bubble.
PS Yeah, I know there are some deviations towards the UK or other English speaking countries.
You do realize that the sources you choose to use are also filters? Unless you can go to primary sources yourself, anyone that has editorial power will pick and choose what they think is important.
Also, if you really want to only see certain news outlets, there’s an option in settings that allows you to do that.
Sounds like Ms. Kern is potentially concerned about losing her job -- as I would be if I were in her shoes. With all the deep learning Apple is supposedly investing in, it's only a matter of time before Apple applies that to its other services. Sure, bias can be baked into an algorithm; but humans have an innate bias that's baked into every one of us. If she's insinuating that a human being is somehow capable of not having bias, she's delirious.
We made different interpretations and apparently you were right.
We should be careful about using the term 'primary source'. They can be everything from documents, to tweets, to oral reports, to releases from news agencies like AP etc. When trying to find truth about a subject we should go back to these origins when we can, to understand or estimate the deeper context that sometimes gets missed by conscious or unconsious bias.
I do feel that while all sources or aggregators (some have both roles) are somewhat biased, it is still important to know what they present.
Last edited: