Leading media organizations, including the NPPA, call for global AI policy to protect editorial integrity .What are your thoughts on this?
Leading media organizations, including the NPPA (The National Press Photographers Association) , call for global AI policy to protect editorial integrity. What are you thoughts on this hot-button topic ?
August 9, 2023
https://nppa.org/news/64d2a1f04325e6544cb7c51cCheers and best to you.
gwilliams6 wrote:
Leading media organizations, including the NPPA (The National Press Photographers Association) , call for global AI policy to protect editorial integrity. What are you thoughts on this hot-button topic ?
August 9, 2023
https://nppa.org/news/64d2a1f04325e6544cb7c51cCheers and best to you.
What editorial integrity?
That's been dead for years now.
This just makes it easier.
Is it real or is it contrived......
Jeffcs
Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
AI just makes it easer for the “media” to tell stories not the news let’s all face it stories sell
That looks like a fairly steep mountain to climb...and I believe the steepness and distance will increase...faster than we realize.
That is going to be one BIG regulatory service...
I think a lot of details about 'other' AI we have is kept in the fog.
The reason newspapers are so slim now is because the news media is only presenting one side of the story. So what do they care about 'Journalistic Integrity?'
SteveFranz wrote:
The reason newspapers are so slim now is because the news media is only presenting one side of the story. So what do they care about 'Journalistic Integrity?'
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for decades, the real reason newspapers have gone away or slimmed down was the advent of online and the subsequent loss of print advertising dollars. It was always those print ad dollars, more than revenue from subscriptions, those millions from daily ads that kept newspapers alive and solvent. Once the readers went to online, the print ads dried up.
One important difference about the so-called journalists today online , is that at our respected newspapers, we had to vet every story with at least two sources of verifiable proof before an editor would let ANY story appear in the newspaper. Today ANYONE can post and/or say anything and call it news, without ANY verifiable facts to back it up, and they do.
There are still a few major newspapers that have enough finances to weather the storm and have successful online versions pulling in some subscribers and some ads. Editorial integrity still matters at these few survivors.
As visual journalists and photographers, what you have to realize is this fight about AI has to do with important legal issues also, as photographic evident is key in many important cases, and that photographic evidence needs to have integrity and remain real and NOT be AI generated. If photographs are no longer real, that can affect our lives and freedoms in many ways.
This is a fight that the National and International courts will want to weigh in on too.
Cheers and best to you.
gwilliams6 wrote:
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for decades, the real reason newspapers have gone away or slimmed down was the advent of online and the subsequent loss of print advertising dollars. It was always those print ad dollars, more than revenue from subscriptions, those millions from daily ads that kept newspapers alive and solvent. Once the readers went to online, the print ads dried up.
One important difference about the so-called journalists today online , is that at our respected newspapers, we had to vet every story with at least two sources of verifiable proof before an editor would let ANY story appear in the newspaper. Today ANYONE can post and/or say anything and call it news, without ANY verifiable facts to back it up, and they do.
There are still a few major newspapers that have enough finances to weather the storm and have successful online versions pulling in some subscribers and some ads. Editorial integrity still matters at these few survivors.
As visual journalists and photographers, what you have to realize is this fight about AI has to do with important legal issues also, as photographic evident is key in many important cases, and that photographic evidence needs to have integrity and remain real and NOT be AI generated. If photographs are no longer real, that can affect our lives and freedoms in many ways.
This is a fight that the National and International courts will want to weigh in on too.
Cheers and best to you.
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for ... (
show quote)
Thank you, gwilliams6, for posting this. What you posted saved me from pointing out the same facts.
gwilliams6 wrote:
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for decades, the real reason newspapers have gone away or slimmed down was the advent of online and the subsequent loss of print advertising dollars. It was always those print ad dollars, more than revenue from subscriptions, those millions from daily ads that kept newspapers alive and solvent. Once the readers went to online, the print ads dried up.
One important difference about the so-called journalists today online , is that at our respected newspapers, we had to vet every story with at least two sources of verifiable proof before an editor would let ANY story appear in the newspaper. Today ANYONE can post and/or say anything and call it news, without ANY verifiable facts to back it up, and they do.
There are still a few major newspapers that have enough finances to weather the storm and have successful online versions pulling in some subscribers and some ads. Editorial integrity still matters at these few survivors.
As visual journalists and photographers, what you have to realize is this fight about AI has to do with important legal issues also, as photographic evident is key in many important cases, and that photographic evidence needs to have integrity and remain real and NOT be AI generated. If photographs are no longer real, that can affect our lives and freedoms in many ways.
This is a fight that the National and International courts will want to weigh in on too.
Cheers and best to you.
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for ... (
show quote)
I do not see this in national courts for many reasons. Perhaps local but not on a federal level.
Yes, this is going to be a problem. Pictures and text can be produced with minimal input from humans, and it will be virtually impossible to tell the real from the fake. If something new can be used to make money or attack people, that will become its most popular use.
gwilliams6 wrote:
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for decades, the real reason newspapers have gone away or slimmed down was the advent of online and the subsequent loss of print advertising dollars. It was always those print ad dollars, more than revenue from subscriptions, those millions from daily ads that kept newspapers alive and solvent. Once the readers went to online, the print ads dried up.
One important difference about the so-called journalists today online , is that at our respected newspapers, we had to vet every story with at least two sources of verifiable proof before an editor would let ANY story appear in the newspaper. Today ANYONE can post and/or say anything and call it news, without ANY verifiable facts to back it up, and they do.
There are still a few major newspapers that have enough finances to weather the storm and have successful online versions pulling in some subscribers and some ads. Editorial integrity still matters at these few survivors.
As visual journalists and photographers, what you have to realize is this fight about AI has to do with important legal issues also, as photographic evident is key in many important cases, and that photographic evidence needs to have integrity and remain real and NOT be AI generated. If photographs are no longer real, that can affect our lives and freedoms in many ways.
This is a fight that the National and International courts will want to weigh in on too.
Cheers and best to you.
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for ... (
show quote)
Most of us know what news is real and what is motivated by other concerns. We can't simply say that all news reporting is bad because it isn't. A tiny portion is intentionally misleading, and most people know what sources to avoid.
jerryc41 wrote:
Most of us know what news is real and what is motivated by other concerns. We can't simply say that all news reporting is bad because it isn't. A tiny portion is intentionally misleading, and most people know what sources to avoid.
That is generally true for most older folks. It is not true for the younger generations. Many of them have somehow missed their appointments for installation of their fact/fantasy/fiction detectors.
larryepage wrote:
That is generally true for most older folks. It is not true for the younger generations. Many of them have somehow missed their appointments for installation of their fact/fantasy/fiction detectors.
They didn't have them installed because they don't know they exist - or they don't want them.
gwilliams6 wrote:
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for decades, the real reason newspapers have gone away or slimmed down was the advent of online and the subsequent loss of print advertising dollars. It was always those print ad dollars, more than revenue from subscriptions, those millions from daily ads that kept newspapers alive and solvent. Once the readers went to online, the print ads dried up.
One important difference about the so-called journalists today online , is that at our respected newspapers, we had to vet every story with at least two sources of verifiable proof before an editor would let ANY story appear in the newspaper. Today ANYONE can post and/or say anything and call it news, without ANY verifiable facts to back it up, and they do.
There are still a few major newspapers that have enough finances to weather the storm and have successful online versions pulling in some subscribers and some ads. Editorial integrity still matters at these few survivors.
As visual journalists and photographers, what you have to realize is this fight about AI has to do with important legal issues also, as photographic evident is key in many important cases, and that photographic evidence needs to have integrity and remain real and NOT be AI generated. If photographs are no longer real, that can affect our lives and freedoms in many ways.
This is a fight that the National and International courts will want to weigh in on too.
Cheers and best to you.
Not true. As someone who worked in newspapers for ... (
show quote)
Thank you. I agree AI has a "dark side" that could impact nearly everything.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.