Google Adds Fact Checking to Google News

[engine]

The latest addition to Google News is fact checking service.

Today, we’re adding another new tag, “Fact check,” to help readers find fact checking in large news stories.Google Adds Fact Checking to Google News [blog.google]

[EditorialGuy]

Addendum:

The recent growth of "fake news" sites makes fact-checking all the more valuable. Some such sites have political agendas, but others appear to be nothing more than clickbait sites that exist solely to earn advertising revenue (or maybe just so the owners can get a laugh when gullible readers share fictitious "news" stories on Twitter and Facebook).

[aristotle]

Some people may be expecting too much from Google in this area. It can be very difficult for a mathematical algorithm to determine if a particular story is true. Here's an interesting example that I came across today:

According to an article at etonline.com, actress Salma Hayek said in a recent interview that years ago Donald Trump had started calling her and asking her to go out on a date with him, but that she had repeatedly turned him down.

Then she said that her refusals made him so angry that he tried to get revenge by planting a story in the National Enquirer which said that he wouldn't go out with her because she was too short.

So how can anyone expect Google's algorithm to determine if this type of story is true or not?

[EditorialGuy]

Unless I'm mistaken, Google isn't trying to determine if a particular story is true, Google is merely identifying related "fact-checking" articles. It's still up to the reader to compare sources and determine truth.

[Selen]

If anything, it's going to do a lot of damage to Google brand. Some facts are not known to the 'fact-checking' sources (either due to ignorance or agenda) and it would be better to rely on the reader's own fact-checking and reasoning rather than risking to give a false answer.

[EditorialGuy]

It's hard to see how Google's brand would be damaged by making it easier for readers to check the veracity of items listed in Google News. Fake news sites and advocacy sites that pretend to be news sites may find their reputations damaged, though.

[Selen]

What are 'fake news sites'?

[tangor]

Google's brand is already damaged due to Wikileaks revelations about them actively working for/with the political ambitions of one party over another. These "fact checker" sites have already been revealed to be generally biased to one party over another. As a multinational company with strong desires to remain that way, it is in g's best interest to support one party over another.... that's why when g employees leave the company they go into government service (and that's a fact which anyone can check, too).

If g plays fast and loose with politics, can you doubt they do the same with their core advertising business as well?

[EditorialGuy]

What are 'fake news sites'?

They're sites with made-up news stories--like The Onion if The Onion weren't trying to be funny. Sometimes they're even identified as sources of fictitious news on their "About us" pages. Not always, though.

[tangor]

That's more hilarious in that those sites do say it is intended for satire and even with that warning the "jurnos" still report satire as fact (and even snopes.com is guilty of this). Snopes, however, once the go to "fact chacker" on the net has been exposed as shills for one party over another in the last 18 months. Again, g should just gather the data, whatever it is, and display it when a query matches. That's their biz and that's all they should be doing.

[goodroi]

I strongly encourage everyone to actually fact check themselves by reading Google's announcement and their FAQ on this schema.

Mods Note: Let's be careful to avoid political & off-topic comments. We are here to discuss SEO not to debate politics :)

[Cindy_B]

Yeah, right, thanks, @goodroi :(

[tangor]

When MSM reports g's fact check as a potential political tool, one can't help bit recognize the precarious position of g's reputation.

Google built its reputation by helping people sift through a deluge of information. Now it’s trying to help them find the facts.

Just in time for Wednesday’s final presidential debate, Google News will begin giving fact-check-style articles — the kind that aim to validate or debunk statements made by a candidate or elected official — a specific label, with similar ones highlighting in-depth stories or local coverage of major events.

It’s a move that could help ensure Google News remains a vital resource for political news — but one that could also expose the tech giant to allegations of partisan bias.

[latimes.com...]

[EditorialGuy]

That's more hilarious in that those sites do say it is intended for satire and even with that warning the "jurnos" still report satire as fact (and even snopes.com is guilty of this).

The claim of "satire" is usually buried in the fine print (e.g., on the "About us" page), and in any case, it's just a legal cop-out, because the "fake news" sites aren't actually satirical.

Case in point: This morning, there's a fake story making the rounds that says the Pope has endorsed a certain U.S. presidential candidate. It's fake, but it isn't satirizing anything. It's just made up, like the supermarket tabloid stories that say that candidate X is dying of lung cancer or that JFK is alive and living in an attic somewhere.

[aristotle]

It’s a move that could help ensure Google News remains a vital resource for political news — but one that could also expose the tech giant to allegations of partisan bias.

The liars are going to scream about bias no matter how honest the fact-checking is. In fact, the more honest it is, the louder they'll scream.

[jmccormac]

How many of these facts would be included?

Google was fined over $500 million to avoid a conviction for drug offences in the US.
Google aids copyright infringement,.
Google facilitates the distribution of #*$!ography.
Google's attempt at supplanting Wikipedia with its own site failed.
Google's attempt at supplanting Twitter with its own site failed.
Google's attempt at supplanting Facebook as the top Social Media site failed.
Google's attempt at supplanting Paypal failed.
Google plundered various websites in a number of niches.
Google is facing a number of multi-billion Euro fines in the EU over illegal activity.
Google avoids paying normal US corporation tax using complex offshore tax loopholes.
Google has been fined for collecting and abusing private data.
Google has lobbied US governments for favourable legislation and treatment.
Google has been raided in France over not paying tax.
Google's primary reason for existence is to make money for its shareholders.

Still think that this fact checking thing is purely altruistic?

Regards...jmcc

[jambam]

jmcc has a point. Even if google did show legit fact checks google will still pick and choose what facts to cover and will conveniently forget about certain facts that go against googles agenda... for example google already did somehting similiar with hilarys clintons auto complete and because a growing number of people beleive that what isnt on google doesnt exist then this is just a bad.

[EditorialGuy]

Even if google did show legit fact checks google will still pick and choose what facts to cover and will conveniently forget about certain facts that go against googles agenda...

Hand-editing of search results isn't scalable or practical. Google has explained how the process works. It involves things like schema markup, for example:

[pending.schema.org...]

This Google support page has more information about Google's standards for identifying pages as fact-checking resources (scroll down to "Fact Check" if the bookmark doesn't do the scrolling for you):

[support.google.com...]

Those are the facts, and you can check them for yourself. :-)

[Selen]

I think we can conclude that all 'fact checkers' are in one way or another either inaccurate or biased. Just like the "Likes" on this on other websites - in the long term, I feel, they are a turn-off to especially new users because if they see a certain poster who is totally biased or uninformed has hundreds of Likes, it may suggest the whole community is on the same page. Same with the 'Fact-checked' word - if there will be wrong answers (and they are and will be), people will start ignoring them or stop visiting the News section completely. It initially may have a positive boost, but in the long run the overall accuracy and 'trust-gain' are not worth it.

[EditorialGuy]

Same with the 'Fact-checked' word - if there will be wrong answers (and they are and will be), people will start ignoring them or stop visiting the News section completely.

I think a more likely scenario is that, when politicians and Web sites are held responsible for the statements they make and the "news" they publish, dishonesty will become a less useful strategy. (except when communicating with the faithful who believe what they want to hear).

Also, from a search engine's point of view, there's a practical reason for discouraging Web sites from spreading lies via Google News, Bing News, etc. Lies are like spam: They provide a poor search experience.

[tangor]

Again, who determines what's a lie? In the above scenario all politicians lie (have since Ug and Ughette sat around the cave fire) and fact checking that is impossible at best and incomprehensible as an algo!

Fact checking is a way to get around defamation laws (libel and slander) and anyone saying that web sites are the ones doing this on a regular basis apparently hasn't read a print newspaper or magazine in some time. IF, on the other hand, all sites that don't meet the fact check eventually lose their standings in search, the world will be a much quieter place as nearly all MSM websites will disappear! :)

[jambam]

It just all totalitarizm at best. Now google is working with the thai govermnet who want to throw people (not even from thailand) into prison for saying things that they disagree with [bbc.co.uk...] ... even insults have their place in democracy as an expression of disagreement.

[Cindy_B]

Google "fact checking" is a form of censorship, plain and simple.

[EditorialGuy]

Google "fact checking" is a form of censorship, plain and simple.

Censorship is about removing or suppressing content.

Google's fact checking is about providing additional resources so the user can better evaluate content. That's an entirely different thing.

If Google were to be pressured into removing fact-checking links, that would be censorship.

[engine]

OK, I get it, nobody likes fact checkers.

Forget whether it's Google, the information source is the one that ought to held to account, and that's long been an issue with information on the Internet.

It's no different to hearsay and information being spouted in a pub, but, of course, that would only travel to a few people at a time. People in the pub choose to believe what they understand to be correct. There are also others in the pub that spread misinformation, and those that also deliberately spread false information.

Just use it as a tool, just as any other. If it's wrong, complete the feedback info.

Speaking from experience, I have been completing feedback forms on Google for a while and I sometimes monitor for corrections. However, I have to assume that my information of the correction is correct. Who really knows, eh!

[tangor]

Fact checking is not the point, a change in g's serp business is. As for "fact", the serp itself generally gets it right from authority and query frequency/satisfaction. Bolting on a "tool" that is flawed from the get go (fact checkers are subject to many ills) changes perceptions of g's ability to deliver "best results".

Fact checking in a pub generally means ignoring the bad info with a shake of the head, perhaps a smile, and going back to the brewski, ie. the "fact" never leaves the pub.

Then again, this is tempest in a teapot since we all know users are cattle driven solely by water and graze (what they consume) and have no "brains". Most likely just another "pretty light" on the screen ignored for the green grass and cool water.

[jambam]

You must remeber the paper googlers released a while back about DEMOTING sites based upon if the so called facts are true or not...so I suspect this is just a step towards this.

[EditorialGuy]

You must remeber the paper googlers released a while back about DEMOTING sites based upon if the so called facts are true or not...so I suspect this is just a step towards this.

The paper, titled "Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources," can be read here:
[arxiv.org...]

Note that it's an academic paper about Web search in general (not specifically about Google News, which is where the new "fact check" tag will appear).

[iamlost]

First: let's remember that this is being applied to 'news' (for some definition thereof) and that news is supposed to be providing breaking information on some point of interest.

Second: let's remember that what used to be 'news' organisations have largely become 'entertainment' subsidiaries.

The greatest failing of 'news' organisations and their presenters (journalists should be added to the endangered species list) is that when someone says 'I did' or 'I did not do' or 'I said' or 'I did not say' they decline to set the record straight when the statement is, to put it politely, incorrect. Yes, we all misspeak on occasion but, increasingly public figures are straight out continually lying about what they previously said/did probably because they have been increasingly getting away with it for years.

Basically, Google may be stepping in where presenters and 'news' organisations have grown afraid to tread.

Third: yes, most science fact is actually hypotheses built on a relatively few incontrovertible measurements plus observational perspectives. Yes, science fact is continually being adjusted or even wholesale overthrown as new knowledge emerges. That does not diminish that science is still providing a best guess as to what is, will be at a given time.

That it often runs contrary to personal belief or business/political benefit is a very poor reason for the general public or the government to deny reality. On the other hand, if you or your organisation can put forth a contrary hypothesis from available knowledge that can stand review I'm all for reading it. However, simply stating something does not make it true. It makes it opinion. Not necessarily bad or wrong but, quite frankly, not exactly 'news'. Except on far far too many 'news' media 'shows'.

[tangor]

This fact check in news is purely political. Period.

However, it's not like we haven't seen or experienced the inherent bias from g in recent years ... and the final result, still in the future, will tell if the public buys in or opts out.

[Cindy_B]

Well, Google head is mentioned today in wikileaks...wonder if that will pass the fact-checking "smell test" ...