SpinSpotter lets readers edit out bias in online news

SpinSpotter has developed a service that lets readers of news sites like CNN.com weigh in on whether the news presented is balanced or heavy with spin. Here, the words highlighted in red have been tagged by SpinSpotter users as being less than objective.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News)

SAN DIEGO--Think the media is biased? Well, now you can do something about it.

Seattle-based SpinSpotter launched an online service at DemoFall on Tuesday that lets readers judge whether articles on the Internet are objective and accurate or not.

"People no longer trust the media," Todd Herman, founder and chief product officer of SpinSpotter, said during a presentation. About 66 percent of people consider the press "one-sided" while only 9 percent of journalists are concerned with the media's credibility, according to a Pew Research Center study.

A SpinSpotter toolbar, called Spinoculars, displays any edits that have been suggested on a news article or blog item on the Web. Readers can annotate headlines and text, comment on and rate other reader's spin ratings of the item and e-mail their work to others.

SpinSpotter also allows users to weigh in on the objectivity of other users. Here, you can see that the crossed-out words have been identified as unbalanced.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News)

In deciding its policies, the company created rules based on the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, discussions with journalism professors and others. Journalism experts also serve as referees, Herman said in an interview.

An algorithm is also used to identify instances of bias and inaccuracy and incorporates feedback from readers. Readers are directed to look for things like writers stating opinion as fact, lack of balance, unattributed adjectives, expert sources with a conflict of interest, and paragraphs lifted from press releases, which makes it "not quite news," according to Herman.

Just like on Wikipedia, there will no doubt be debate among readers who have divergent political and philosophical leanings. But readers who abuse the system or demonstrate extreme personal bias will see their activities have less impact than others who play by the rules as their trust rating gets lowered, said Herman, who used to be a radio talk show host.

But in a world where blogging has blurred the line between traditional journalism, opinion and gossip, won't most text on the Web be subject to scrutiny? Items that set themselves apart as news, which is understood to be objective and accurate, is fair game, but blogs that are disclosed as opinion aren't, he said.

What about news that is biased because it omits information or context? The system has a way for readers to provide additional information that can help them assert their case.

The service works only with text online, so broadcast news isn't covered, which is a shame. People would truly have a hay day with Fox News. But maybe that comment is too biased...

[Pete Bardo]

Funny thing is that of the 66% that believes new coverage is biased, they will split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, along with a smattering of less popular viewpoints, on the same coverage! Personal viewpoints put their own personal spins on everything, even what is true and what isn't.

What's ironic about this venture is that is is being built with the help of journalists--the very people those same 66% don't trust to begin with!

BTW, was this piece news, or just plain old blogging?

[rootlesscosmo]

It's bogus--check the analysis at

http://headsuptheblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/kings-camelopard-or.html

[saintseminole]

I'm one of those nine percent, I guess (journalists who're concerned with media credibility). Something like this is a long time coming, but probably will not really work. For one thing -- as the previous commenter said -- the readers will bring their own bias to the process. And from the letters to the editor we receive, I can see that readers are just as biased as journalists. For another thing, the average reader of web news will realize that his/her "edits" to the story will not actually be put on the news website; it will only show up to other users of the same editing service. If they know their work won't have much impact, then they won't do it.

[myrddin_1975]

The SpinSpotter is a fabulous & useful idea. I wish I'd thought of it! That said though, can any news really be objective? My brother the journalism major may disagree with me, but I studied documentary film, and in film, you learn that there is always a point of view reflected. No matter how objective you try to be, subtle things like the placement of the camera, editing, choice of location, etc. can inject some of the filmmakers view of things. Similarly, with written news there are a number of factors that may introduce "spin." Not just word choice, but even the mere arrangement of topics can introduce some bias. For example, you can highlight things you agree with by giving them a more prominent place within the article, at the very beginning or the very end. Then you can bury things you don't agree with by placing those somewhere in the middle of the article. But think how boring the news might be if journalists couldn't use those colorful terms like "wonk" or "tzar" because they are deemed too subjective. The trouble is that news outlets see the news as product that must be sold, rather than something to enlighten the public. Sell, sell, sell!