Quoted in Google News? Post a Comment

An anonymous reader writes "Google News has a feature it calls "Comments From People in the News." (rude interrupting registration may be required) The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article. (Journalists can comment, as well, Google says, though none have done so thus far.) Since it was introduced in the spring, the feature has largely existed under the radar, with roughly only about 150 total comments having been made. Thus far, Google News has used e-mail messages to encourage people quoted in articles to submit comments — an effort to prime the pump similar to the process that results in the first issue of a new magazine magically having letters to the editor."

Google Quote?

So we now have a "Google Letters to the Editor" search now? Interesting.

how do they authenticate the comment?

How do they authenticate the identity of the poster? How do I know it really is the person quoted in the article and not some disgusting slashdot troll?

Not only that..

Even if they do somehow verify your name, how do they know you're the right person with that name? I can't wait for someone called John Smith to make the news.

Re:Not only that..

Very True Mr. Lebowski... Now where's the money!

I've kind of liked this idea

If someone is panted in a poor light in an article they get a chance to rebut. It's a neat feature but do you really think 9/10th of people in the news will take time to respond to Google's news page and jump through the needed hoops to prove they're who they claim to be?

So

What is stoping me from saying that I'm some guy that is quoted saying something?

Old and Pointless News

I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.

Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.

This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular :)

Re:Old and Pointless News

Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted. I expected people to be misquoted and thus I take articles in the news media with a grain of salt. I also know that many times people aren't misquoted and don't like the result of the article as a whole and then bitch that they were misquoted in order to cover their own asses.

What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News.

Re:Old and Pointless News

Pretty much everybody is misquoted, Journalists do a cruddy job of getting it right, and in many cases they mis characterize quotes or paraphrase them. The operating assumption that people have when they read quotes in the news is that they aren't an accurate representation of what was said.

Sort of like all the buzz about Will Smith liking Hitler. It was a preposterous misquote, that was more than a little bit insulting the religions that teach people to consider every person to have a little bit of goodness inside of them. The extended quote was an amazingly insightful statement about the human condition. Of course that version isn't of any particular interest, because it wouldn't keep people reading blogs.

There's one interesting use for that

Journalists (not all of them, sure, but way too many) like to misquote on purpose, quote selectively, out-of-context or in any way otherwise changing the intended meaning of the quoted statement, after which the quoted (quotees? Is that even a word?) are left for the public to tear apart for something they didn't mean but the journalist wanted to put in their mouth - with no real way to correct what has already been printed, save for a few rich enough to take a legal action or just so rich to not give a crap about that.

Such a system gives a way for corrections like that to be made public instantly and directly. Maybe that has even happend already, I don't know - but I think that's the most interesting and possibly useful outcome of this.

False allegations of misquoting?

When I worked as a reporter, the people I quoted sometimes remarked on the fact that I was the rare reporter who quoted them correctly. I honestly think that this was not because other reporters are dishonest, but because I type quickly and most of my interviews were over the phone. It was much harder for me to get direct quotes when interviewing with pad and paper.

While I think this is good, because it allows for sources to respond to an article, I think it's important to remember that the sources themselves may not always be truthful. If they don't like the way an article came out, they could say they were misquoted, even when they weren't.

I suppose the journalist's safeguard for this is to audio-record every interview, but danged if most sources would agree to that. There will inevitably be some "he said, she said."

DUPE!

This is a dupe!

From Slashdot, August 9th, 2007: Google News Allowing Story Participants To Comment [slashdot.org]

Ahem, editors still tipsy off the holiday eggnog?

Happy Holidays all!

Misquotes

Since in almost every article, especially science and technology articles that require a broad understanding and depth to write coherently about, most writers mis-understand the interviewees (either willfully or through ignorance) this appears like it could be an excellent feature. A conscientious interviewee could fill in the gaps or correct misunderstandings the journalist missed and give us a more complete picture.

This could then turn into an ad-hoc rating system for journalists. How many articles did they write that were corrected? How good is their basic understanding of what someone said vs. what they actually meant? What way(s) did they colour the interviewees thoughts with their own biases? How many interviewees reputiate quotes (I did not say that!)?

It has a pretty good chance to work IF people are cognizant of it, assuming that if someone gives an interview they are at least attached enough to their own reputation to make sure the journalist gets what they are saying right. I know if I were mis-quoted or misunderstood I wouldn't want people to get the idea that I actually said/meant X instead of Y.

Don't be Rude!

(rude interrupting registration may be required)

Not if you convert the link to its RSS version. Don't know how? Use this handy convertor [blogspace.com].