Advertisement

News Diversity and Recommendation Systems: Setting the Interdisciplinary Scene

  • Glen JorisEmail author
  • Camiel Colruyt
  • Judith VermeulenEmail author
  • Stefaan Vercoutere
  • Frederik De Grove
  • Kristin Van Damme
  • Orphée De Clercq
  • Cynthia Van Hee
  • Lieven De Marez
  • Veronique Hoste
  • Eva Lievens
  • Toon De Pessemier
  • Luc Martens
Chapter
  • 37 Downloads
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 576)

Abstract

Concerns about selective exposure and filter bubbles in the digital news environment trigger questions regarding how news recommender systems can become more citizen-oriented and facilitate – rather than limit – normative aims of journalism. Accordingly, this chapter presents building blocks for the construction of such a news algorithm as they are being developed by the Ghent University interdisciplinary research project #NewsDNA, of which the primary aim is to actually build, evaluate and test a diversity-enhancing news recommender. As such, the deployment of artificial intelligence could support the media in providing people with information and stimulating public debate, rather than undermine their role in that respect. To do so, it combines insights from computer sciences (news recommender systems), law (right to receive information), communication sciences (conceptualisations of news diversity), and computational linguistics (automated content extraction from text). To gather feedback from scholars of different backgrounds, this research has been presented and discussed during the 2019 IFIP summer school workshop on ‘co-designing a personalised news diversity algorithmic model based on news consumers’ agency and fine-grained content modelling’. This contribution also reflects the results of that dialogue.

Keywords

News personalisation Algorithms News recommender systems Right to receive diverse information News diversity News content extraction #NewsDNA 

References

  1. 1.
    All the news that’s fit for you: The New York Times. “Your Weekly Edition” is a brand-new newsletter personalized for each recipient. https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/06/all-the-news-thats-fit-for-you-the-new-york-times-your-weekly-edition-is-a-brand-new-newsletter-personalized-for-each-recipient/. Accessed 5 Dec 2019
  2. 2.
    Mis niets over uw favoriete thema’s via “Mijn dS”. https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20190304_04229666. Accessed 9 Aug 2019
  3. 3.
    Gepersonaliseerd nieuws: matchmaker voor online media of journalistiek-ethisch mijnenveld? https://www.vn.nl/gepersonaliseerd-nieuws-matchmaker-of-mijnenveld/. Accessed 5 Dec 2019
  4. 4.
    Thurman, N., Moeller, J., Helberger, N., Trilling, D.: My friends, editors, algorithms, and I. Digital Journalism 7, 447–469 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thurman, N., Schifferes, S.: The future of personalization at news websites. Journal. Stud. 13, 775–790 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Araujo, T.B., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., de Vreese, C.H.: In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
  7. 7.
    Mcquail, D.: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Möller, J., Helberger, N., Makhortkh, M., van Dooremalen, S.: Filterbubbels in Nederland (2019). Commissariaat Voor de Media (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borgesius, F.J.Z., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C.H., Helberger, N.: Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review 5(1), 1–16 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helberger, N.: On the democratic role of news recommenders. Digital Journalism 7, 993–1012 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recommendation Systems: General Collaborative Filtering Algorithm Ideas. http://www.cs.carleton.edu/cs_comps/0607/recommend/recommender/collaborativefiltering.html. Accessed 5 Dec 2019
  12. 12.
    Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 285–295. ACM, New York (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1145/371920.372071
  13. 13.
    Van Damme, K., Martens, M., Van Leuven, S., Vanden Abeele, M., De Marez, L.: Mapping the mobile DNA of news. Understanding incidental and serendipitous mobile news consumption. Digit. Journal., 1–20 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1655461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Good, N., Schafer, J.B., Konstan, J.A., Borchers, A., Sarwar, B., Herlocker, J., Riedl, J.: Combining collaborative filtering with personal agents for better recommendations. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eleventh Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 439–446. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, J., Pedersen, E., Dolan, P.: Personalized news recommendation based on click behavior. In: 2010 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, Y., Wu, C., Xie, M., Guo, X.: Solving the sparsity problem in recommender systems using association retrieval. JCP 6, 1896–1902 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.4304/jcp.6.9.1896-1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adnan, Md.N.M., Chowdury, M.R., Taz, I., Ahmed, T., Rahman, R.M.: Content based news recommendation system based on fuzzy logic. In: 2014 International Conference on Informatics, Electronics Vision (ICIEV), pp. 1–6 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEV.2014.6850800
  18. 18.
    Smyth, B., McClave, P.: Similarity vs. diversity. In: Aha, D.W., Watson, I. (eds.) ICCBR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2080, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44593-5_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lathia, N., Hailes, S., Capra, L., Amatriain, X.: Temporal diversity in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 210–217. ACM, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835486
  20. 20.
    United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission: Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. Communication COM(2018) 236 final (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    High level Group on fake news and disinformation: A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. European Commission Directorate-General for Communication, Networks, Content and Technology (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. ETS No. 005 (1950)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akandji-Kombe, J.-F.: Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe, Strasbourg (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights: Positive obligations on member States under Article 10 to protect journalists and prevent impunity. European Court of Human Rights Case-law Research Reports (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OJ C 326/391 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGonagle, T.: Positive obligations concerning freedom of expression: mere potential or real power? In: Journalism at Risk: Threats, Challenges and Perspectives, pp. 9–35. Council of Europe, Strasbourg (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1). ECtHR (1979)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria. ECtHR (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Voorhoof, D., van Loon, A., Vier, C.: IRIS Themes – Vol. III – Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists. Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erdoğdu and İnce v. Turkey. ECtHR (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sürek v. Turkey (No. 1). ECtHR (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khursid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden. ECtHR (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Times Newspapers LTD v. the United Kingdom (Nos. 1 and 2). ECtHR (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manole and Others v. Moldova. ECtHR (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy. ECtHR (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. OJ C 303/17 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Advocate General Jääskinen: Google Spain. CJEU (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Beijer, M.: Limits of Fundamental Rights Protection by the EU: The Scope for the Development of Positive Obligations. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (Text with EEA relevance) (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sky Österreich. CJEU (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McQuail, D.: Media performance. In: The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, pp. 1–9 (2015)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    van der Wurff, R.: Do audiences receive diverse ideas from news media? Exposure to a variety of news media and personal characteristics as determinants of diversity as received. Eur. J. Commun. 26, 328–342 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111423377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Day, A.G., Golan, G.: Source and content diversity in Op-Ed Pages: assessing editorial strategies in The New York Times and the Washington Post. Journalism Studies6, 61–71 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670052000328212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rodgers, R., Hallock, S., Gennaria, M., Wei, F.: Two papers in joint operating agreement publish meaningful editorial diversity. Newspaper Res. J. 25, 104–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Voakes, P.S., Kapfer, J., Kurpius, D., Chern, D.S.-Y.: Diversity in the news: a conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73, 582–593 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909607300306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raeijmaekers, D., Maeseele, P.: Media, pluralism and democracy: what’s in a name? Media Cult. Soc. 37, 1042–1059 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715591670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Napoli, P.M.: Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication 49, 7–34 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu, P., Li, Z.: Task complexity: a review and conceptualization framework. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42, 553–568 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Joris, G., De Grove, F., Van Damme, K., De Marez, L.: News diversity reconsidered: a systematic literature review unravelling the diversity in conceptualizations (submitted)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McQuail, D., Van Cuilenburg, J.J.: Diversity as a media policy goal: a strategy for evaluative research and a Netherlands case study. Gazette 31, 145–162 (1983).  https://doi.org/10.1177/001654928303100301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Takens, J., van Ruigrok, N., van Hoof, A., Scholten, O.: Old ties from a new(s) perspective: diversity in the Dutch press coverage of the 2006 general election campaign. Communications 35, 417–438 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    McQuail, D.: Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. Sage Publications, London (1992)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., van Es, B.: Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information, Communication & Society 21, 959–977 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Masini, A., Van, A.P.: Actor diversity and viewpoint diversity: two of a kind? Communications 42, 107–126 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
    Colruyt, C., De Clercq, O., Hoste, V.: EventDNA: guidelines for entities and events in Dutch news texts (v1.0) (2019)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vossen, P.: Newsreader Public Summary (2016)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Doddington, G., Mitchell, A., Przybocki, M., Ramshaw, L., Strassel, S., Weischedel, R.: The automatic content extraction (ACE) program – tasks, data, and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Lisbon (2004)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Aguilar, J., Beller, C., McNamee, P., Van Durme, B., Strassel, S., Song, Z., Ellis, J.: A comparison of the events and relations across ACE, ERE, TAC-KBP, and FrameNet annotation standards. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pp. 45–53. Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-2907
  63. 63.
    O’Gorman, T., Wright-Bettner, K., Palmer, M.: Richer event description: integrating event coreference with temporal, causal and bridging annotation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computing News Storylines (CNS 2016), pp. 47–56. Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin (2016).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-5706
  64. 64.
    Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C.R., Scheffczyk, J.: FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. International Computer Science Institute (2006)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vossen, P.: NewsReader at SemEval-2018 task 5: counting events by reasoning over event-centric-knowledge-graphs. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 660–666. Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans (2018).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S18-1108
  66. 66.
    Colruyt, C., De Clercq, O., Hoste, V.: Comparing event annotations: notes on the EventDNA corpus IAA study (2019)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lu, J., Ng, V.: Event coreference resolution: a survey of two decades of research. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 5479–5486 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen Joris
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Camiel Colruyt
    • 3
  • Judith Vermeulen
    • 4
    Email author
  • Stefaan Vercoutere
    • 5
  • Frederik De Grove
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kristin Van Damme
    • 1
    • 2
  • Orphée De Clercq
    • 3
  • Cynthia Van Hee
    • 3
  • Lieven De Marez
    • 1
  • Veronique Hoste
    • 3
  • Eva Lievens
    • 4
  • Toon De Pessemier
    • 5
  • Luc Martens
    • 5
  1. 1.imec-mict-UGentGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Center for Journalism Studies, Department of Communication SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Language and Translation Technology Team, Department of Translation, Interpreting and CommunicationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Law and Technology, Department of Interdisciplinary Law, Private Law and Business LawGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  5. 5.imec-WAVES-UGent, Department of Information TechnologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations