Last week, in my Writing Across the Media course, I showed a video, produced by The Washington Post, about how sports articles are being written by computer programs. Perhaps you’ve heard of this. The thinking is that many sports news stories are rather formulaic, and so, given the right data, a computer program can pump out stories that overburdened sports writers can’t get to. For now, this means mostly local stories about high school teams.
I asked my students, all Communications majors, to consider what this means for their futures. Some felt that this kind of thing is inevitable, and they would just need to adapt. Others lamented this move, but didn’t see it as a serious threat to journalism. Still others thought that the computers must be stopped before they take over the world, Terminator-style.
As a person who long ago developed the mantra that I don’t want to do any work that a machine can do for me — probably this is a result of being raised on the optimistic science fiction of Star Trek — I too feel torn about this development. I mean, I’m a writer, and I don’t want to lose my job to a computer, but, on the other hand, I don’t want to write formulaic news stories either. In fact, as I teach those same students the inverted pyramid model, as I drill into their heads the word-length requirements for an effective lead, and as I mark down their assignments for deviating from these rigid requirements, I sometimes feel like I’m squelching their creativity. I remedy this by insisting that you must learn the rules before you can break them.
And I really believe this. It is important for aspiring journalists to learn the tried and true methods for covering the news, but I jump for joy whenever I see them move beyond the formula into new territory. This is a tension that has long existed in journalism. It is a service, after all, and the reader needs to be able to get the news in a way that is quick and efficient. And yet, it is also an art. Writing is a creative craft.
When I take these two things together, the fact that computers can now spit out formulaic journalism, and my desire to see my students move from service to craft, I end up feeling less worried about so-called auto-journalism and more optimistic about journalism’s future. Perhaps if computers are writing the basic news stories for us, journalists are freed up to write the kind of stories that computers will never be able to produce — news analysis, feature stories, profiles, and longer narratives.
It seems this is already where journalism is heading. If you look at the proliferation of #Longreads (thanks in part to the tireless work of our own David Sessions), and the investment by billionaires into struggling news agencies as well as the very recent news that eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is sinking $250 million into a news agency dedicated to investigative journalism, it appears that long-form, dare I say more “literary” journalism is on the rise. In other encouraging news, more directly related to the interests of this site, the recent appointment of my friend and editor Patton Dodd — who holds a PhD in Literature and Religion and studied, among other things, New Journalism — to head the new “On Faith” site as it spins off from The Washington Post, means that we’ll likely see more of this kind of writing around religion. Of course, the new “On Faith” will be joining others like “Religion Dispatches” and “Religion and Politics,” which have already opened up space for this kind of writing.
So I have no reason to fear that we’ll be subject to computer overlords in the near future. Rather, I’m excited to see new opportunities open for those of us who want to consider religion beyond the inverted pyramid. This is a much needed shift because such a complex topic has never fit well into the limited hard news story anyway.
Here’s hoping that Patrol will play its own little part in this potentially monumental shift.
- grifter1910 on A Response to Stephen Baskerville’s Lecture at Patrick Henry College
- Vernon Rainwater on The Chastened Baritone and the Worth of Labor
- Patricia Jolley on Sufjan Is An Insensitive Name
- Realist on How Women Ruined Men, the World, Everything, Etc
- AC700 on Living the Story of Belief: Marilynne Robinson’s “Gilead”
TagsAndrew Sullivan Atheism Barack Obama Bible Book Review Books Capitalism Catholic Church Charles Taylor Christian Christianity Christianity Today Conservatism Conservatives Education Evangelicalism Evangelicals Evolution Facebook Faith Feminism Gay Marriage God History Jesus Journalism Mark Driscoll Marriage Martin Heidegger Marvin Olasky Marxism Media New Sincerity New York Times Patheos Philosophy Politics Religion Religion and Spirituality Ross Douthat Same-sex marriage Theology United States Women Young Evangelicals