2023-08-27 06:46:31
Society is witnessing a new example of what journalism should and should not do, can and cannot offer its audiences when it comes to interpreting the events that affect them. The acts of looting, vandalism and mass robberies that have been taking place in recent days force the press to be cautious, so as not to fall into extreme positions, premature condemnations and sometimes whimsical interpretations.
This phenomenon that has been taking place particularly in the Buenos Aires suburbs, but also in cities and suburbs in other parts of the country, deserves great restraint on the part of those of us who practice this profession. The memory of the tragic days of 2001 comes back to mind as part of a social and political conflict that continues to this day and the parallel with those outbreaks adds a political component that grows in magnitude.
In the past week, a new ingredient has been added to the conventional resources that make journalists qualified witnesses and also dangerous vehicles for more events of these characteristics. What to say, how to say it, what limits to respect when dealing with this issue, are some of the challenges that the situation imposes. The usual resources in these cases – sources, hard data, interviews – seem insufficient to neutralize the violence and stop those who can encourage it with various resources. Last Tuesday, the journalist Eduardo Feinmann went a step further and resorted to one of the most controversial and also most innovative instruments in communication. The simple question was addressed to Artificial Intelligence, the scope of which is under full review by governments, international organizations and the scientific community. Feinmann asked the AI a question: “Can you give me the definition of looting?” The answer was clear and forceful: “Looting refers to the act of violently stealing or looting property, assets or resources, usually during a conflict, natural disaster or riot. It involves illegally taking possession of valuables, either in a chaotic situation or with the intent to cause harm.” An interesting case to take into account when making a journalistic analysis of the events, these or whatever.
Soledad Alcaide, Defender of the Reader of the newspaper El País of Spain, devoted an extensive column to the subject. “The irruption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, particularly ChatGPT, since November,” she wrote, “has caused a wave of concern—perhaps precipitated—, which has echoed in the media. At the annual meeting of ONO (the international organization of reader ombudsmen), concern was noted because the arrival of the first chatbot capable of creating content on its own would overwhelm newsrooms that were not prepared. As if the crisis of digital disruption was going to repeat itself, when the universalization of the internet at the end of the 90s radically transformed the sector and caused the closure of thousands of newspapers around the world”.
“As we enter the world of Artificial Intelligence, it will be more difficult to know what is true and what is false,” said the American columnist Margaret Sullivan, former Reader’s Advocate for The New York Times, who encouraged the journalists to be trained in this technology and to encourage “radical transparency” of their work for the sake of credibility.
That is the challenge: that those of us who practice this profession are capable of incorporating this new communication phenomenon and applying it to a better understanding of reality by society, our public.
1693119813
#Looting #Artificial #Intelligence #journalistic #responsibility