Last year, a researcher designed an algorithm that collects data from Wikipedia and Wikidata in order to discover breaking news topics. The algorithm has proven to be successful, identifying stories such as the Boston Marathon bombings and the disappearance of Malaysia flight MH370, but researchers quickly learned users wanted more than just news. Human beings are highly visual, and we enjoy looking at pictures. The new algorithm, called the Social Media Illustrator works with the news algorithm to combine images and breaking news. Arguably, when news is associated with photos, we’re able to understand the content in a more complete way. According to this post, there are many benefits to combining visual content with news. I encourage you to view the full text, but a few statistics are listed below.
90% of information transmitted to the brain is visual, and visuals are processed 60,000X faster in the brain than text.
Visual content drives engagement.
85% of the US internet audience watches videos online.
The use of images with breaking news could be beneficial to viewers, but there may also be negative effects of this connection. I find several issues with the Social Media Illustrator, as well as the original news algorithm.
“One problem is that in many cases, it is not at all clear what breaking news stories the images refer to.”
When something happens, news organizations may not know every detail in the beginning. Often, they’ll report on what they know and add details as they go along. They certainly don’t have access to a database of photos connected to the event. Even if they did, it probably wouldn’t be possible to build a complete story with those images. Wouldn’t that mean an algorithm would have trouble as well, attempting to compile a set of images that could encompass the details of a breaking news story in a way that would make sense to viewers? Don’t forget time is a major factor in this news algorithm; breaking news only remains “breaking” for so long. Building a comprehensive story with images is possible, but I’m not sure I can fully trust an algorithm to provide me with an unbiased, full news account.
Images have the potential to limit viewer imagination. After viewing a set of photos connected to a news event, the user may view that event in terms of the visual representation. It’s difficult to entertain different thoughts after you’ve been given images claiming to represent the breaking news story. Therefore, this algorithm could potentially act as a filter bubble for viewers. Since the article mentioned the Boston Marathon bombing, I’ll use that breaking news story as an example. If the image algorithm had been used as details were unfolding during that event, users would have received incorrect information, based on the photos popular during that time. Sure, I can remember seeing the bloody photos of the victims, but I also distinctly remember photos of two men (later labeled the “Bag Men” by the New York Post) who were originally thought to be the bombers. The image was popularized on social media sites and news sites alike, but the photo didn’t depict the two bombers, just two ordinary men viewing the marathon from the sideline. Since it was popular, the algorithm might have picked it up and used it in connection with its breaking news coverage of the event. Not only does this limit the scope of the story, but it facilitates the spread of incorrect information.
It’s also difficult to measure what events fall into the category of breaking news. Different subjects are important to different people. Although we can all agree events like the Boston Marathon bombing are important, what about events with less direct effect on viewers? A celebrity’s car accident may not be “breaking news” to everyone, but it’s certainly popular news. These algorithms could limit what we as viewers are supposed to care about. Users may begin to believe a lack of breaking news coverage or images suggests a lack of importance. In other words, if there isn't a diverse array of photos connected with the story or updates every five minutes, it must not be worthy of the title of breaking news.
Perhaps the most troubling effect of these algorithms is the lack of human connection with the viewers.
"It’s quite possible that some of the news we consume in the future will be spotted, evaluated and written and illustrated by an algorithm.”
If a formula can tell us everything we need to know about a story (including photos), why do we need journalists? Right now, the media dictates what should be considered breaking news. The media is made up of thousands of people and networks who write and share their thoughts and ideas with the rest of the world; if most of them decide an event should be considered “breaking news,” it usually becomes such. They work together to quickly assemble a story for the citizens. In this way, viewers receive diverse opinions and viewpoints. Now, imagine a single algorithm dictating what breaking news should be. The lack of input from journalists and news organization could have dire consequences.
“So far, these algorithms are relatively crude and human journalists generally do a significantly better job.”
And for that, I am thankful because I don’t know about you, but I don’t like an algorithm telling me what to think.