{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title":"If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2017054909","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","uuid":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title":"If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics","normalized_title":"ifthenalgorithmicpowerandpolitics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2017054909","isbns":["2017054909","9780190493042","9780190493059"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":211,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/If...Then%20Algorithmic%20Power%20and%20Politics","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/search"},"page":{"printed_page":135,"pdf_page":145,"physical_index":145,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"f880684a79299166e846ffe84b7f5679438641006778c77c9b648903fb6cc717"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"The interviews reveal how algorithms are deemed particularly problematic when they threaten to diminish the journalistic mission of ensuring an informed public. Moreover, algorithms become problematic when they threaten to automate too much—especially when they compromise people’s jobs, or when they become unruly and can no longer easily be controlled, starting to challenge the fundamental touchstones of editorial responsibility. Algorithms are not just problematic in terms of the various concerns and challenges to which they point: They are also conceived of as problematic at diferent times and circumstances. The notion of the problematic algorithm appears, for example, during moments of negotiation and breakdown, or when it becomes permeated with people’s worries and concerns.\n\nIncorporating algorithms as agents in the newsroom is not without its challenges. Most news executives I talked to describe a variety of obstacles and trials encountered in the process of adding an algorithm to the mix. When algorithms are incorporated into the editorial workflow, the process is often characterized by much debate and tweaking in the beginning, before the algorithm gradually slips into the background and becomes, at least temporarily, stabilized. Many news outlets have dedicated teams of programmers and data journalists who experiment with new tools and techniques on an ongoing basis; however, when organizations instigate more pivotal and far-reaching technological changes, the process is often more top-down. A few dedicated people, often digital project managers and editors, make decisions that are subsequently rolled out into diferent sections and parts of the newsroom. First, you need to figure out what you want the algorithm to do. While some news organizations spend considerable time on concept development, others such as iTromsø, release the code to see what happens. Even in cases where algorithms are released more quickly, the process of implementation implies subjecting the algorithm to a series of trials and questions. As Jakobsen says of the process at iTromsø, “first, we had to ask ourselves, should we ask our readers for permission” and to what degree should the algorithm be opt-in or opt-out? (Interview 2, May 2016). When implementing an algorithmically generated newsfeed for the first time, they decided not to ask their readers for permission explicitly but rather to “just go ahead and ask for forgiveness later.” When I asked Jakobsen how often they think about or tweak the algorithm now, he replied, “not so much anymore.” In the beginning, “we tweaked it every day” until it became more stable and less problematic he says. While nobody seemed to complain about the opt-in solution, there were other issues that had to be dealt with, Jakobsen adds. It proved increasingly dificult to find the same article twice because the algorithm was constantly showing new items and personalizing content. To combat the disappearing archive that comes with personalization, iTromsø implemented a section called “my reading history,” where you could easily find old articles again. They also implemented an opt-out buton at the botom of the mobile interface to make it easier for readers to go back to a non-personalized feed. One of the things that is far more dificult to handle algorithmically, however, is knowing when to show certain content. In seting the parameters for personalization, having a sense of “right time” seems crucial (see also chapter 4). Like the annoyingly reappearing Lisbon hotel ads that plagued my Facebook news feed in the introductory chapter, Jakobsen uses a similar example to explain how an algorithm can provide stupid output. In order to prevent the algorithm from “showing you hotels in Ljublana 14 years after you’ve been there,” you need to make sure to give your algorithm a sensible lifetime, Jakobsen says (Interview 2, May 2016).\n\nProgramming the News\n\n135","previous_page":134,"next_page":136}