Robot Journalist Writes A Better Story On College Baseball Perfect Game
from the who-what-when-where-why dept
A few weeks back, there was a fun story about how the website GWsports.com, which (as you might imagine) covers sports at George Washington University, became something of the laughing stock of the press world by publishing a game recap on a game between GW and the University of Virginia. The game recap reads pretty straightforward, opening with the fact that the GW team lost, and then spending a few paragraphs covering the various efforts by different GW players. It's only in the seventh paragraph, out of a grand total of eight, that it finally gets around to mentioning that the opposing pitcher, Will Roberts, threw a perfect game. If you're not a baseball fan, a "perfect game" is extremely rare. As the article does (finally) note, this is only the eighth such perfect game in NCAA Division 1 history (since 1957) and the first since 2002. Normally, you would think that any press coverage would start with the perfect game bit.The national press, including the Washington Post, picked up on this and GW folks tried to defend the writing by noting that they're only in the business of promoting their own teams, not others:
“This is the George Washington website,” GWU sports information director Dave Lubeski tells Romenesko. “We’re in the business to promote our athletes and our team. We’re not claiming to be journalists.” What some call “the buried lead” was discussed after the story was posted, says Lubeski, and it was mentioned that the perfect game could have been noted in the sub-hed. But “we’re not in the newspaper business,” notes the SID.I had sent that story around to a few people, because I thought it was pretty funny, but didn't have any obvious reason to post it here... until now. Apparently, in covering the story, Deadspin wondered if perhaps the original article hadn't actually been written by a newfangled automated software program that's been touted as being good enough to write sports stories.
Well, it turns out that the people who wrote that software, Narrative Science, were offended that their program might be thought of as having written an article so badly written, and fed their program the data from the game, and it popped out much better versions. They actually did two versions, a "neutral" point-of-view one, and one designed for GW fans. The "neutral" one brings up the perfect game in the first paragraph. The GW POV one does wait until the third paragraph, but still seems much better than the original...
So, perhaps the author of the original has passed the reverse Turing test, when you can't tell if a human is actually a human or a robot...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: baseball, george washington university, journalism, perfect game, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They abandoned it because of the ensuing slaughter of journalists at the hands of Harrison Ford.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crappy URL formatting
The link in the article is: http://deadspin.com/#!5787397/we-heard-from-the-robot-and-it-wrote-a-better-story-about-that-perfect -game which doesn't work.
I searched their website and discovered that the URL: http://uk.deadspin.com/5787397/we-heard-from-the-robot-and-it-wrote-a-better-story-about-that-perfec t-game works fine.
Very strangely, the "uk" at the start of the URL is important, as it prevents corruption of the link.
Heading to http://deadspin.com/5787397/we-heard-from-the-robot-and-it-wrote-a-better-story-about-that-perfect-g ame works, but sets the URL to http://deadspin.com/#!5787397/we-heard-from-the-robot-and-it-wrote-a-better-story-about-that-perfect -game (#! added, as in the original link). After trying this, the #! link now works in new browser sessions, but trying to click through to new #! links (from other linking sites, via a google search) still fails.
Not your fault, Mike, but you might want to keep an eye on this when linking from this group of websites in the future, as it seems to be pretty consistent across the group.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Crappy URL formatting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speaking of robots writing articles
You expect us to believe you haven't been replaced by a blogging robot that never sleeps?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking of robots writing articles
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking of robots writing articles
Do you honesty think that sites that update content at odd hours have an intern sitting and clock-watching to for time to push the button to upload?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Exactly. I marked this comment funny, but it is also extremely scary because of the 'truth' it contains (real life is stranger than fiction at times...).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Speaking of robots writing articles
(In the interests of disclosure, I'm all in favour of these "meta posts")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Testing
"Just answer the question!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]