{"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":141,"pdf_page":151,"physical_index":151,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"c31245cdfa0435897912e6e0eb475c09eed91b9aff50b33b43940446687d257a"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"It is not dificult to see the appeal of the notion of an “editor-controlled algorithm” as described by several of the news professionals. It conveniently limits the power of code, while allowing for human agency at the same time. The result is something less threatening, yet modern and innovative. Since its implementation at Svenska Dagbladet, the algorithm and new publishing platform has widely been heralded as a success. Partially guided by editors and partially by reader preferences the algorithm delivers a personalized homepage for each website visitor based on timeliness, news values, and interest. Since launching the algorithm the newspaper claims to have seen a boost in trafic by up 15% in page views and 9% in unique visitor. This is the story of an algorithmic hero, not a villain. While the Swedish newspaper was practically pronounced dead, the algorithm made the future look bright again, or so at least the story went (Garcia,  2017). What makes this algorithm applaudable are its owners. That is, what sets the journalistic and “editor-controlled algorithm” apart from Facebook’s “Californian code” lies in the former’s moral salience. Fredric Karén, editor-in-chief at Svenska Dagbladet, puts it in this way in an interview with Storybench:\n\nI believe that you need to control and own your own technology. Google and Facebook would be thrilled for us to join their ad platforms. But to be a publisher is also about integrity: To own the way you publish, when you publish and where you publish is really important moving forward. (Rodrigues, 2017)\n\nLet’s pause for a moment and consider what the word “integrity” is doing in the above account and how it works to make the algorithm mater in the right way. In light of the many recent controversies surrounding the Facebook algorithm, especially regarding the discussions about the extent to which Facebook should assume editorial responsibility, the news media find themselves in the welcome position of highlighting and strengthening their institutional legitimacy. For Espen Sundve at Schibsted, the prospect of becoming too absorbed with Facebook’s news feed algorithms is one of his biggest concerns about the future of news. Although Sundve has Facebook’s publishing platform “Instant Articles” in mind when he talks about the risk of being engulfed by the Facebook algorithm, these concerns have ramifications far beyond its financial accountability. For news professionals, the problematic algorithm does not merely manifest itself inside news organizations but, perhaps more importantly, in terms of the external algorithms governed by Facebook and Google. Sundve says of the Facebook news feed that, “from a democratic perspective,” it is very problematic to “give away your editorial position to someone who clearly does not take any editorial responsibility” (Interview 7, May 2016).\n\nBecoming too dependent upon algorithms that do not reflect the right values is risky. As Sundve says, technology companies may atempt to give people what they want, but journalism is primarily about providing people with information they should know and taking responsibility for that. Giving people information about what they should know, Sundve adds, also implies giving people the opposite view of an issue. “If you are a vaccination opponent, you should also be exposed to facts on the other side of the spectrum and not just find 50 other people supporting your views on your Facebook news feed,” Sundve says (Interview 7, May 2016). One way to avoid filter bubbles, many informants suggest, is to think more carefully about the design of algorithms. It is not that algorithms always create bubbles and echo chambers. The question is what a specific algorithm is actually optimized for. As Gillinger sees it, there is no necessary opposition between algorithms and diversity—“it all depends on what it is that you want your algorithm to reflect.” It is entirely possible to optimize for clicks if that is what you want; “but, in my world, that is a badly written algorithm,” Gillinger says (Interview 17, May 2016). While critics worry about Facebook’s alleged power to create filter bubbles and misinformed publics, there is also the sense in which the democratic crisis can be resolved by writing beter and journalistically sound algorithms.\n\nProgramming the News\n\n141","previous_page":140,"next_page":142}