Great evocation of newspapering history that should not be forgotten, and, as you say, has real relevance in the AI era. Thanks. Not that it matters, but you didn't mention the angry printersw' strike at The Washington Post, whose end left some people embittered against Katharine Graham even after her decisions to support Woodward & Bernstein and print the Pentagon papers. One other thing you didn't mention (although I'm not sure I have the facts rights) is that "e-t-a-o-i-n s-h-r-d-l-u" was transformed into a pseudonymic byline at some paper or other.
The rule of not publishing without human review is a wise one, but as the Chicago Suntimes learned last May in publishing its infamous summer book supplement, the humans doing the review have to actually evaluate the copy based on their experience and knowledge of the topic being covered. Seems like that's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but knowledge and experience now tells us otherwise.
Thank you for the history and a reminder of the hard work and mechanics of the old age. Yes, I think AI will have a place in whatever shape a future newsroom takes, but not for the better. Human copy editors were largely responsible for writing intentionally misleading headlines for clicks, but with AI the internet and behavioral analytics we will see customized headlines that go even deeper into trickery.
Great evocation of newspapering history that should not be forgotten, and, as you say, has real relevance in the AI era. Thanks. Not that it matters, but you didn't mention the angry printersw' strike at The Washington Post, whose end left some people embittered against Katharine Graham even after her decisions to support Woodward & Bernstein and print the Pentagon papers. One other thing you didn't mention (although I'm not sure I have the facts rights) is that "e-t-a-o-i-n s-h-r-d-l-u" was transformed into a pseudonymic byline at some paper or other.
I enjoyed your article. Thanks.
The rule of not publishing without human review is a wise one, but as the Chicago Suntimes learned last May in publishing its infamous summer book supplement, the humans doing the review have to actually evaluate the copy based on their experience and knowledge of the topic being covered. Seems like that's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but knowledge and experience now tells us otherwise.
Thank you for the history and a reminder of the hard work and mechanics of the old age. Yes, I think AI will have a place in whatever shape a future newsroom takes, but not for the better. Human copy editors were largely responsible for writing intentionally misleading headlines for clicks, but with AI the internet and behavioral analytics we will see customized headlines that go even deeper into trickery.
Yes, and caveat emptor!