Advertisement

Enabling Accountability of Algorithmic Media: Transparency as a Constructive and Critical Lens

  • Nicholas DiakopoulosEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Big Data book series (SBD, volume 32)

Abstract

As the news media adopts opaque algorithmic components into the production of news information it raises the question of how to maintain an accountable media system. One practical mechanism that can help expose the journalistic process, algorithmic or otherwise, is transparency. Algorithmic transparency can help to enable media accountability but is in its infancy and must be studied to understand how it can be employed in a productive and meaningful way in light of concerns over user experience, costs, manipulation, and privacy or legal issues. This chapter explores the application of an algorithmic transparency model that enumerates a range of possible information to disclose about algorithms in use in the news media. It applies this model as both a constructive tool, for guiding transparency around a news bot, and as a critical tool for questioning and evaluating the disclosures around a computational news product and a journalistic investigation involving statistical inferences. These case studies demonstrate the utility of the transparency model but also expose areas for future research.

Keywords

Information Disclosure News Article Transparency Information Editorial Decision Transparency Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

CAR

Computer-assisted reporting

NPR

National Public Radio

RTDNA

Radio Television Digital News Association

SPJ

Society for Professional Journalists

SRF

Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen

References

  1. 1.
    Graefe, A.: Guide to Automated Journalism. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, New York, NY (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lokot, T., Diakopoulos, N.: News bots: automating news and information dissemination on Twitter. Digit. J. 4, 682–699 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spangher, A.: Building the Next New York Times Recommendation Engine. New York Times, New York, NY (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, S., Han, E.-H. (Sam), Rush, A.M.: Headliner: an integrated headline suggestion system. In: Computation C Journalism Symposium, Palo Alto, CA (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, S., Han, E.-H.: BreakFast: analyzing celerity of news. In: International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), Miami, FL (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magnusson, M., Finnäs, J., Wallentin, L.: Finding the news lead in the data haystack: automated local data journalism using crime data. In: Computation + Journalism Symposium, Palo Alto, CA (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thurman, N., Schifferes, S., Fletcher, R., et al.: Giving computers a nose for news. Digit. J. 4(7), 743–744 (2016). doi: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1149436
  8. 8.
    Park, D.G., Sachar, S., Diakopoulos, N., Elmqvist, N.: Supporting comment moderators in identifying high quality online news comments. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gillespie, T.: The relevance of algorithms. In: Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pasquale, F.: The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diakopoulos, N.: Algorithmic accountability: journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digit. J. 3, 398–415 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ward, S.J.A.: Radical Media Ethics: A Global Approach. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fink, K., Schudson, M.: The rise of contextual journalism, 1950s–2000s. Journalism. 15, 3–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McBride, K., Rosenstiel, T.: The new ethics of journalism: principles for the 21st century. In: The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21st Century. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman, B., Nissenbaum, H.: Bias in computer systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 14, 330–347 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fengler, S., Russ-Mohl, S.: The (behavioral) economics of media accountability. In: Fengler, S., Eberwein, T., Mazzoleni, G., Porlezza, C. (eds.) Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age, pp. 213–230. Peter Lang, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deuze, M.: What is journalism?: professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism. 6, 442–464 (2005). doi: 10.1177/1464884905056815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silverman, C.: Corrections and ethics. In: McBride, K., Rosenstiel, T. (eds.) The New Ethics of Journalism—Principles for the 21st Century, pp. 151–161. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diakopoulos, N., Koliska, M.: Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digit. J. (2016). http://nca.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053
  20. 20.
    Lofland, J., Lofland, L.: Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 3rd edn. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burrell, J.: How the machine “thinks”: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 1–12 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fung, A., Graham, M., Weil, D.: Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stark, J., Diakopoulos, N.: Towards editorial transparency in computational journalism. In: Computation + Journalism Symposium, (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trielli, D., Mussende, S., Stark, J., Diakopoulos, N.: How the Google Issue Guide on Candidates is Biased. Slate (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Napoli, P.M., Caplan, R.: When media companies insist they’re not media companies and why it matters for communications policy. In: Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein, R., Robertson, R.E.: The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, E4512–E4521 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Purcell, K., Brenner, J., Rainie, L.: Search Engine Use 2012. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Agichtein, E., Brill, E., Dumais, S., Ragno, R.: Learning user interaction models for predicting web search result preferences. In: Proceedings of SIGIR 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer, P.: Precision Journalism: A Reporter’s Introduction to Social Science Methods, 4th edn. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goschowski Jones, R., Ornstein, C.: Matching Industry Payments to Medicare Prescribing Patterns: An Analysis (2016). https://static.propublica.org/projects/d4d/20160317-matching-industry-payments.pdf?22
  31. 31.
    Blake, H., Templon, J.: The Tennis Racket. BuzzFeed News (2016). https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket
  32. 32.
    Templon, J.: How BuzzFeed News Used Betting Data to Investigate Match-Fixing in Tennis. BuzzFeed News (2016). https://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-we-used-data-to-investigate-match-fixing-in-tennis
  33. 33.
    Shapiro, A.: On Libel and the Law, U.S. and U.K. Go Separate Ways. National Public Radio (NPR) (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations