J-Guard: Journalism Guided Adversarially Robust Detection of AI-generated News

The rapid proliferation of AI-generated text online is profoundly reshaping the information landscape. Among various types of AI-generated text, AI-generated news presents a significant threat as it can be a prominent source of misinformation online. While several recent efforts have focused on detecting AI-generated text in general, these methods require enhanced reliability, given concerns about their vulnerability to simple adversarial attacks. Furthermore, due to the eccentricities of news writing, applying these detection methods for AI-generated news can produce false positives, potentially damaging the reputation of news organizations. To address these challenges, we leverage the expertise of an interdisciplinary team to develop a framework, J-Guard, capable of steering existing supervised AI text detectors for detecting AI-generated news while boosting adversarial robustness. By incorporating stylistic cues inspired by the unique journalistic attributes, J-Guard effectively distinguishes between real-world journalism and AI-generated news articles. Our experiments on news articles generated by a vast array of AI models, including ChatGPT (GPT3.5), demonstrate the effectiveness of J-Guard in enhancing detection capabilities while maintaining an average performance decrease of as low as 7% when faced with adversarial attacks.Comment: This Paper is Accepted to The 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL 2023

Citizen curation in online discussions of Donald Trump's presidency: sharing the news on Mumsnet.

In an era of fake news and concerns about social-media bubbles, we consider how participants in online discussions on the UK parenting website Mumsnet assess the validity and potential subjectivity of news information sources. Building on previous work on the phenomenon of social media curation and news curation, we argue that there is evidence for the development of a theory and practice of citizen curation - the subjective and non-professional collection, assessment and criticism of information by participants in online discussions for the benefit of the group. Participants on Mumsnet collaborate to source, present and curate information from a variety of news sources, and impose a clear hierarchy with reference to these sources' veracity. Information garnered from mainstream, liberal-leaning news sources is given the highest level of trust, often being used to support information from other sources, which are seen as less trust-worthy. Information might also be presented from conservative-leaning news sources, but only when it supports the overall anti-Trump tone. Having acknowledged the selective subjectivity of the curatorial process performed by our participants, we then ask how far this contributes to the creation of a liberal bubble effect, and how far our participants are willing to go to validate news stories shared in this way. We argue that our participants demonstrated a clear awareness of the veracity and potential subjectivity of their sources, worked collaboratively to verify news items, and were proud of their ability to scoop the mainstream news media on occasion. Given that earlier work on such groups of news-absorbed users has suggested that they tend to be male, the identification of such a group on a female-dominated website also expands the literature and suggests that such gender differentiations should be made with care

A Tale of Two Stories from "Below the Line": Comment Fields at the Guardian

This article analyzes the nature of debate on “below the line” comment fields at the United Kingdom’s Guardian, and how, if at all, such debates are impacting journalism practice. The article combines a content analysis of 3,792 comments across eighty-five articles that focused on the UN Climate Change Summit, with ten interviews with journalists, two with affiliated commentators, plus the community manager. The results suggest a more positive picture than has been found by many existing studies: Debates were often deliberative in nature, and journalists reported that it was positively impacting their practice in several ways, including providing new story leads and enhanced critical reflection. However, citizen–journalist debate was limited. The results are attributed to the normalization of comment fields into everyday journalism practice, extensive support and encouragement from senior management, and a realization that comment fields can actually make the journalists’ life a little easier

“It’s a terrible way to go to work:” what 70 million readers’ comments on the Guardian revealed about hostility to women and minorities online

In 2006, the Guardian opened many of its articles to readers’ comments to encourage a “conversation” between journalists and their readers. Readers responded enthusiastically, and by 2016 they had posted 70 million comments on the site. However, from the outset many journalists complained about the quality and tone of comments. Female and BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) journalists in particular complained that they were subject to more abuse than their male, white counterparts. This study finds prima facie evidence to support the journalists’ claims. Using comments that had been blocked by moderators as a proxy for abuse and dismissive trolling, it was found that articles written by women did attract a higher percentage of blocked comments than those written by men, regardless of the subject of the article; this effect was heightened when the articles ran in a particularly male-dominated section of the site. There was also evidence that articles written by BAME writers attracted disproportionate levels of blocked comments, even though the research was not designed to reveal this. Preliminary research findings were published in the Guardian and readers were invited to comment on them. Guardian journalists’ experiences of comments were also surveyed. Both sets of responses are analysed here, in order to explore the contested nature of online abuse in an online news media environment, and to evaluate the potential of comments to “democratise” journalism

We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People

In We the Media, nationally acclaimed newspaper columnist and blogger Dan Gillmor shows how anyone can produce the news, using personal blogs, internet chat groups, email, and a host of other tools. He tells the story of this emerging phenomenon and sheds light on this deep shift in how we make--and consume--the news. Journalism in the 21st century will be fundamentally different from the Big Media oligarchy that prevails today. We the Media casts light on the future of journalism, and invites us all to be part of it

Permission taken

Once, personal technology and the Internet meant that we didn\u27t need permission to compute, communicate and innovate. Now, governments and tech companies are systematically restricting our liberties, and creating an online surveillance state. In many cases, however, we\u27re letting it happen, by trading freedom for convenience and (often the illusion of) security. In this talk, Dan Gillmor—a founding director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication—suggests steps we can take as individuals to be more secure and free, and to take back the permissions we\u27re losing

What's next for books in the digital age? Outlook unclear

Among my many other activities these days, I\u27m working on a new book … or something like that. That qualification reflects the uncertainty of the times. As volumes printed on paper evolve to newer media – at some point, a printed volume seems likely to become a luxury item – we\u27re obliged to think about what constitutes a book in the digital age. I used to think I knew the answer, but I\u27m no longer remotely sure. Two recent events have not cleared things up. After listening to smart and well-informed speakers at a "Future of Publishing" panel in California late last year, as well as at last week\u27s "O\u27Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing" conference in New York City, I found myself, if anything, less certain. It was easy, not so long ago, to say, "This is a book, and this isn\u27t." From the early Codex to hand-penned Bibles (created by "scribes"), Gutenberg\u27s printing press through the late 20th century, a book was a collection of bound pages. But as has happened with other media forms, digital technology has blurred the lines we once took for granted. On the internet, media formats easily cross boundaries – something we\u27ve all seen in recent times. In the news business, for example, what were once print-only newspapers now create videos, and television channels have added articles that could easily appear in print. Everyone is using new tools, such as map/sensor mashups, to create a vast variety of forms that are native to the online world. We can still identify a newspaper if it\u27s dropped at our doorstep – and some of us still get the New York Times delivered on Sundays – but take it online and it\u27s clearly something else. The book\u27s boundaries have moved as well, but not as far. It still functions as a linear, self-contained unit. It has a beginning, a middle and and end. Read the full article >   Photo Credit: david__jones via Compfight c