Google News introduces fact checking tag just in time for the election

[midian182]

Thanks in no small part to the upcoming election and the accusations being thrown around by all involved, fact-checking has become more important than ever. As such, Google is adding a fact check tag to articles on news.google.com, where they will appear in the expanded story box, and on the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps.

The feature joins existing tags used by Google’s news service, such as Opinion, In-depth, Highly Cited, and the recently added Local Source. The search giant says the growth of fact-checking organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network also prompted it to introduce the tag.

Google will look for the schema.org ClaimReview markup to determine if sites contain fact checks. Additionally, Google makes sure that the pages follow certain criteria for fact checks, which include: “Discrete claims and checks must be easily identified in the body of fact-check articles. Readers should be able to understand what was checked, and what conclusions were reached.”

If Google finds a site that doesn’t meet the criteria for the ClaimReview markup, it may ignore the markup or remove the site from Google News.

“We’re excited to see the growth of the Fact Check community and to shine a light on its efforts to divine fact from fiction, wisdom from spin,” the company said in its blog post.

Some of the sites already using the new markup include political fact-checker Politifact.com, and the UK-based independent fact-checking charity Full Fact. So far, fewer than ten domains are currently using the feature.

With less than a month to go and just one more debate to get through before voting begins, it’s a shame Google didn’t introduce the fact-checking tag sooner.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/66679-google-news-introduces-fact-checking-tag-time-election.html

 

[davislane1]

"Thanks in no small part to the upcoming election and the accusations being thrown around by all involved, fact-checking has become more important than ever

[...]

With less than a month to go and just one more debate to get through before voting begins, it’s a shame Google didn’t introduce the fact-checking tag sooner."

No it hasn't and no it's not. If these things mattered to Google and half the people saying we need more "fact checkers" the on-going WikiLeaks email dumps would be getting massive attention and blatant nonsense like "Trump said Mexicans are rapists and murderers" or "Trump supported the Iraq war" wouldn't have dominated the "fact checking" portion of all news coverage since 2015.

Moreover, people wouldn't be getting spam flagged and banned on social media sites for publishing content damaging to Clinton.

 

[oldikes]

The real question is does anyone trust google to do fact checking. Like REAL fact checking.

 

[davislane1]

The real question is does anyone trust google to do fact checking. Like REAL fact checking.

I suspect Bing News is going to be seeing an influx of traffic.

 

[Kibaruk]

The only people who cares about this, are those who still believe it's their god given right to vote for their leader, even though they might or might not know how the system works and that their vote is irrelevant.

Please stop giving a popular belief that voting for the states matters, since only a few ones will end up making the decision per state, according to their system.

 

[lripplinger]

And how do we know the "fact checkers" themselves aren't full of horse manure.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

"Thanks in no small part to the upcoming election and the accusations being thrown around by all involved, fact-checking has become more important than ever

[...]

With less than a month to go and just one more debate to get through before voting begins, it’s a shame Google didn’t introduce the fact-checking tag sooner."

No it hasn't and no it's not. If these things mattered to Google and half the people saying we need more "fact checkers" the on-going WikiLeaks email dumps would be getting massive attention and blatant nonsense like "Trump said Mexicans are racists and murderers" or "Trump supported the Iraq war" wouldn't have dominated the "fact checking" portion of all news coverage since 2015.

Moreover, people wouldn't be getting spam flagged and banned on social media sites for publishing content damaging to Clinton.

The problem isn't really lack of facts - it's lack of balanced news. For example - there are dozens of news stories about something stupid Trump said back when today's young voters were still in grade school, and you can fact check it all day. But if you want to fact check how the FBI basically faked the investigation of Clinton's emails by giving immunity to Hillary's assistant Cheryl Mills - you won't be able to . Because the stories like that are buried 7 clicks away from a headline - if they're reported at all.

 

[Evernessince]

The only people who cares about this, are those who still believe it's their god given right to vote for their leader, even though they might or might not know how the system works and that their vote is irrelevant.

Please stop giving a popular belief that voting for the states matters, since only a few ones will end up making the decision per state, according to their system.

I'd say a vote matters more if you tell everyone who and why. The ensuing discussion is what makes a democracy a democracy. In modern society, it's the idea behind the vote more than the vote itself.

 

[davislane1]

The problem isn't really lack of facts - it's lack of balanced news. For example - there are dozens of news stories about something stupid Trump said back when today's young voters were still in grade school, and you can fact check it all day. But if you want to fact check how the FBI basically faked the investigation of Clinton's emails by giving immunity to Hillary's assistant Cheryl Mills - you won't be able to . Because the stories like that are buried 7 clicks away from a headline - if they're reported at all.

This is, in essence, my point.

Google et. al. aren't interested in "facts" as one would ordinarily interpret the word. They are after the "right" facts, which just so happen to line up with their financial and political interests.

Prime example:

True: Trump said the phrase, "grab 'em by the *****."

Unverifiable: Leaked Podesta emails can't be authenticated by google fact-checkers.

Bias therefore justified. Results appropriately removed from Google news results to maintain quality of information.

That's the game.

 

[Bruce V Wayne]

Google fact checking is useless. Everyone knows that they are in the tank for Hillary.

 

[Kibaruk]

I'd say a vote matters more if you tell everyone who and why. The ensuing discussion is what makes a democracy a democracy. In modern society, it's the idea behind the vote more than the vote itself.

I will assume you have no idea on how the voting system works in the states, they have two groups of voters, one of those is the popular vote which is the people's vote which, without exaggerating means nada, cero, zip, nothing, and not diminishing it because it's one vote, but because one of the elected can win the popular vote doesn't mean he/she becomes the president.

 

[davislane1]

I will assume you have no idea on how the voting system works in the states, they have two groups of voters, one of those is the popular vote which is the people's vote which, without exaggerating means nada, cero, zip, nothing, and not diminishing it because it's one vote, but because one of the elected can win the popular vote doesn't mean he/she becomes the president.

If the electoral college dismisses a popular (Trump) vote, they're gonna have a big problem on their hands. Believe me.

 

[davislane1]

Case in point, I doubt this will be showing up in Google's upgraded feed: http://observer.com/2016/10/rigged-debates-wikileaks-emails-confirm-media-in-clintons-pocket/

 

[Janie J]

Google fact checking is useless. Everyone knows that they are in the tank for Hillary.

And yet, it was the negative articles that proved misleading and false about Hillary here on Google that was the deciding factor for me, on why I had reached out to Google a month ago, in writing, asking them to correct and be more truthful in their reporting. What you speak of is absolutely not true. However, this recent news raises hope for me that I might once again be able to find truthful facts here on Google.

 

[Janie J]

This is, in essence, my point.

Google et. al. aren't interested in "facts" as one would ordinarily interpret the word. They are after the "right" facts, which just so happen to line up with their financial and political interests.

Prime example:

True: Trump said the phrase, "grab 'em by the *****."

Unverifiable: Leaked Podesta emails can't be authenticated by google fact-checkers.

Bias therefore justified. Results appropriately removed from Google news results to maintain quality of information.

That's the game.

You are citing Fox (faux) News???.......I rest my case

 

[davislane1]

You are citing Fox (faux) News???.......I rest my case

^^^ And this is the market Google is selling to.

 

[Kibaruk]

If the electoral college dismisses a popular (Trump) vote, they're gonna have a big problem on their hands. Believe me.

They do not need to dismiss it, the popular vote only works for statistics purposes and nothing more.

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (I.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College. In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

 

[davislane1]

They do not need to dismiss it, the popular vote only works for statistics purposes and nothing more.

I know how it works. And what I am saying is that means nothing in the eyes of the people. The whole narrative this year is that "the WHOLE system is against you."

You think they're going to go quietly into the night if the EC is perceived to shaft them after this election cycle?

Events have been set in motion that will not end peacefully, irrespective of who is put in the White House.

 

[Pipeline]

At this point, who cares what is or isn't true? Do you want a crook in the White House or a braggart?

 

[gollum21]

At this point, who cares what is or isn't true? Do you want a crook in the White House or a braggart?

They are both crooks.

 

[Evernessince]

I'd say a vote matters more if you tell everyone who and why. The ensuing discussion is what makes a democracy a democracy. In modern society, it's the idea behind the vote more than the vote itself.

I will assume you have no idea on how the voting system works in the states, they have two groups of voters, one of those is the popular vote which is the people's vote which, without exaggerating means nada, cero, zip, nothing, and not diminishing it because it's one vote, but because one of the elected can win the popular vote doesn't mean he/she becomes the president.

I know more than you think. Each state gets a set number of delegates in the electoral college. Each state may also set it's rules on how those delegates are assigned. For example, certain states split the number of delegates based on the popular vote or have an all or nothing rule in which one candidate who got more votes gets all the delegates from that state. After the popular vote these delegates then go on to make the final vote for the president of the united states. There has never been a case in US history where a delegate has voted against what he has been assigned and some states even go as far as to require them to vote based on the results of the popular election.

The reason you are saying that a vote has no relevance is because it is possible in all or nothing states for a large portion of the populace to be ignore if the majority is even by a sliver. In reality, it's a big "depends", based on what state you are in and if that is even going to be an issue in your state.

Also, I live in the States so yeah... you know what they say about assuming.

 

[Kibaruk]

Well then you should also know about those cases where popular votes are 50/50 yet again all electoral voters go one way, so yeah, assumptions are really never a good way to go you are right.