A Relativistic Opinion Mining Approach to Detect Factual or Opinionated News Sources

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10440)

Abstract

The credibility of news cannot be isolated from that of its source. Further, it is mainly associated with a news source’s trustworthiness and expertise. In an effort to measure the trustworthiness of a news source, the factor of “is factual or opinionated” must be considered among others.

In this work, we propose an unsupervised probabilistic lexicon-based opinion mining approach to describe a news source as “being factual or opinionated”. We get words’ positive, negative, and objective scores from a sentiment lexicon and normalize these scores through the use of their cumulative distribution. The idea behind the use of such a statistical approach is inspired from the relativism that each word is evaluated with its difference from the average word. In order to test the effectiveness of the approach, three different news sources are chosen. They are editorials, New York Times articles, and Reuters articles, which differ in their characteristic of being opinionated. Thus, the experimental validation is done by the analysis of variance on these different groups of news. The results prove that our technique can distinguish the news articles from these groups with respect to “being factual or opinionated” in a statistically significant way.

References

  1. Bethard, S., Yu, H., Thornton, A., Hatzivassiloglou, V., Jurafsky, D.: Automatic extraction of opinion propositions and their holders. In: Proceedings of the Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, pp. 22–24. AAAI (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Blitzer, J., Dredze, M., Pereira, F.: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In: ACL, pp. 187–205 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Dashtipour, K., Poria, S., Hussain, A., Cambria, E., Hawalah, A.Y.A., Gelbukh, A., Zhou, Q.: Multi-lingual sentiment analysis: state of the art and independent comparison of techniques. Cogn. Comput. 8, 757–771 (2016). 9415[PII] 27563360[pmid] Cognit ComputCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F.: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006, pp. 417–422 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Feldman, R.: Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 56(4), 82–89 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fenby, J.: The International News Services. Schocken Books, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  7. Gaziano, C., McGrath, K.: Measuring the concept of credibility. Journal. Q. 63, 451–462 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu, B.: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synth. Lect. Hum. Lang. Technol. 5(1), 1–167 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38, 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morinaga, S., Yamanishi, K., Tateishi, K., Fukushima, T.: Mining product reputations on the web. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 341–349. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S.: Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ACL2002, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 79–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf. Retr. 2(1–2), 1–135 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. Rose, T., Stevenson, M., Whitehead, M.: The reuters corpus volume 1 - from yesterday’s news to tomorrow’s language resources. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2002, pp. 827–832 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Sandhaus, E.: The new york times annotated corpus overview (2008). https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2008T19/new_york_times_annotated_corpus.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2014
  15. Singh, V.K., Piryani, R., Uddin, A., Waila, P., Marisha, R.: Sentiment analysis of textual reviews; Evaluating machine learning, unsupervised and SentiWordNet approaches. In: 2013 5th International Conference Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), pp. 122–127 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. Toutanova, K., Klei, D., Manning, C., Singer, Y.: Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL, pp. 252–259 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Tsytsarau, M., Palpanas, T.: Survey on mining subjective data on the web. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 24(3), 478–514 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Yu, H., Hatzivassiloglou, V.: Towards answering opinion questions: separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 129–136. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Izmir Institute of TechnologyUrlaTurkey
  2. 2.Izmir Institute of TechnologyUrlaTurkey

Personalised recommendations