News Media Innovation Reconsidered. Группа авторов

news have been guided by professional codes of transparency, truthfulness, and responsibility.

      Gómez-García and Martín-Quevedo’s Chapter 5 reflects a similar tension between the audience’s emotional engagement and accurate reporting of the facts. The authors describe successful performances of new forms of interactive journalism that incorporate gameplay. These performances involve an ongoing cultural struggle against the immorality of playing with real-world events, deaths, and suffering. In this struggle, entertainment and triviality give way to the design of relevant social and political simulations that progressively include more investigative sources and perspectives. Stories based on biased, personalized objectives, which guide the gamer by targeting groups and individuals, turn into innovative newsgaming projects that ensure transparency and responsibility without losing the engaging and emotional dimension of gameplay.

      New journalistic narratives may reflect how journalistic institutions are producing news in a more engaged way. In their analysis of “stamp story” formats, Navío-Navarro and González-Díaz (Chapter 6) argue that this new way of disseminating the news helps to reach and engage with, for instance, Gen Z and Millennial audiences immersed in a digital culture, by maintaining journalism’s complexity and interpretation.

      The use of big data has brought into journalism new ethical concerns in relation to transparency and the quality and bias of the data sets being used. These polluting effects of data available through digital technology, however, seem to have been partially overcome by some new forms of collaborative investigative journalism. Drawing on the metajournalistic discourses on the Panama Papers from different newspapers that investigated the leaked documents of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, Cortés and Luengo (Chapter 7) observe that data journalists place themselves on an unpolluted side of new investigative reporting, in which, far from activism, data serve democratic-accountability journalism.

      Other current ethical concerns specify the cultural performance of new journalistic forms, practices, and processes within the area of algorithms, bots, and automatization. Rojas Torrijos’s Chapter 8 focuses on the ethics of journalism generated by machines. Barceló-Ugarte et al.’s Chapter 9 explores the specific incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into Spanish public television’s workflows, emphasizing the ethical challenges posed by the different phases of newsgathering, documentation, writing, publishing, archiving, and audience analysis. As Chapters 8 and 9 explain, AI is changing the way in which news is created.

Most of these changes—to give an example, in May 2020, Microsoft was accused of sacking journalists working at its MSN website and replacing them with AI software (Waterson, The Guardian, May 30, 2020)—are interpreted as threats to journalism. Yet layoffs of journalists by digital publishers are not the only reason for seeing automated technology as foreshadowing journalism’s extinction. A few weeks after the layoffs at Microsoft, MSN.com published a news story about the mixed-race pop star Jade Thirlwall’s personal reflection on racism; the story was illustrated with the wrong mixed-race member of the singer’s band, Little Mix. Thirlwall had been attending a Black Lives Matter protest in London. The anecdote triggered widespread criticism within the media of Microsoft’s employment of robots that cannot differentiate mixed-race individuals. More significantly, it echoed current ethical debates on alleged racist biases (and other types of human distortions) in AI software coding.

      Rojas analysis of some of the best practices of AI journalism shows that a “semi-automated” journalism, in which human reporters and robots work together, might help to overcome criticism focused on software’s biases as well as another ethical challenges that AI poses to journalism. The selected initiatives show how algorithms and bots are used by leading journalistic organizations to broaden news media coverage and enhance high-quality reporting on public-interest issues, such as police information on homicides (Los Angeles Times) or earthquake warnings (Los Angeles Times and Oregon Public Broadcasting). These journalistic projects bring to the forefront of news media innovation the combination of old and “new guiding principles” for a new digital era of journalism (McBride and Rosenstiel, 2014)—for example, verification, rigor, depth, civil engagement, or community.

      Taking the British Press Association’s automated news service RADAR (Reporters and Data Robots) as an example, Rojas Torrijos (Chapter 8) highlights the community value of algorithmic journalism, which is currently meeting “the increasing demand for fact-based news for local communities” by delivering data-driven localized versions of stories to the UK’s local newsrooms (PA Media Group, 2018). Likewise, in other countries around the world, semi-automated news is filling the gap left by the disappearance of local reporting, and consequently it is contributing to building a sense of community. The combining of speed and verification, as well as of reporting and investigation, and the providing of both public interest news and community-driven stories are, among other professional and civil values, the basis of journalism innovation achieved through AI. New semi-automated journalistic practices mirror the way in which journalism is, to quote Rojas Torrijos, “acquiring a new vision that can cope with change so as to make professional ethics the guiding thread that anchors and stimulates innovation” (Rojas Torrijos, Chapter 8).

      This book ends with a section devoted to the public. Contributions to this section revisit core ethical debates on big data (Cancela-Kieffer, Chapter 10), the personalization of news (Pedrero-Esteban and Gas-Gozalbo, Chapter 11), transparency (Christofoletti, Chapter 12), and verification (Espíritusanto and Dinant, Chapter, 13), posed by the previous chapters, to reflect on journalism’s mission to inform the public in times of post-truth, distrust of institutions, echo chambers, big tech, and social and political shocks.

      Christofoletti’s Chapter 12 questions transparency to rethink journalism’s professional culture. When promoting transparency, does journalism itself become more open and contextualize its own products, practices, and modus operandi? For Christofoletti, transparency in journalism “is not an end in itself, but a path” to replace arrogance with humility, narcissism with dialog, and to create and develop newsrooms that are more publicly exposed and more willing to review procedures. The author explores new civil and journalistic initiatives based on this new culture of transparency that are helping journalism to implement new trust-building strategies. By the same token, Espíritusanto and Dinant (Chapter 13) use verification and the question of how people can ascertain the truthfulness of a news story to explore innovative technological tools to empower citizens to fight against misinformation.

In Chapter 10, Cancela-Kieffer argues that the only way for journalism to navigate a disrupted data-driven society is to fully embrace its core mission: “safeguarding ‘the people’s right to know.’” She advocates for creativity and for a “radical collaborative journalism” involving other disciplines—for example, mathematics and coding. She appeals to a journalistic culture of objectivity (the separation of facts from opinion) and self-criticism to combat subjectivity and self-defensiveness. Cancela-Kieffer argues that technology allows journalists to bring “personalized experiences” into people’s lives. “Small data,” a simpler and more local form of data journalism, she observes, has demonstrated the