Peter Adams

AI Assistants Get News Wrong 45% of the Time, Study Finds

"AI Assistants Get News Wrong 45% of the Time, Study Finds"

"When people don’t know what to trust, they end up trusting nothing at all..."

gizmodo.com/ai-assistant...

#AIIsTheProblem #TLSky #EduSky #SchoolLibrarians

1/

I was addressing your specific claim about NYT coverage of Letitia James.

A sample:

I think if you read the actual coverage, not reflect on the impression of it you get from people here, you will find that it’s not a wasteland of false balance. We can have meaningful debates about how coverage could be better, but saying it’s altogether absent or toothless seems performative.

So it’s your claim, as a former journalist, that every major news org — and the thousands of journalists who work in their newsrooms — are utterly inept and collectively, consistently produce “pitiful” political journalism?

That’s not an accurate description of their coverage, IMO. But it’s true that broadcast is a quicker format for news, for sure. They can’t possibly include everything a newspaper does … even in their lead story.

Seems like you have a pretty clear picture.

I am a parent in Chicago.

And all of this is being covered like it’s a big deal, IMO.

Hard news reporting shouldn’t be the mouthpiece for your outrage. It should be the basis for it.

That’s crass and abusive, my dude. Have a good night.

What is this?

And I would argue that it’s not the job of the press to have its hair on fire, as such. It’s the job of the press to rigorously report on anything worthy of the public’s collective hair being on fire.

No legitimate newsroom would report that we are losing our democracy as a fact in hard news coverage. But plenty of opinion journalists have made that argument (and some the opposite argument) based on the facts established by that hard news coverage.

I don’t agree that’s an accurate way to describe contemporary news coverage.

Also, I’m really curious: which news organization described this as “a bold bucking of norms”?

That isn’t the only story the NYT has done on this — not even close. It’s a follow-up. Pretending like that isolated, cherry-picked phrase (from a social post) is representative of their coverage of the demolition of the east wing isn’t really honest, is it?

Do you actually read/watch/listen to their coverage?

You don’t think this has been covered — prominently — by national news organizations?

Which news organizations do you feel haven’t sufficiently covered these things for the public to know as much as you do about them? (Also, how do you know so much about these things, if not from “the media”?)

Seriously?

Question: if no media (by which I assume you mean news organizations) have said a word about the administration’s actions, how did you find out about them?

The people who were shot were actively driving at the officers in a rented U-Haul. This is not your typical problematic passive voice headline that minimizes police action.

Wouldn’t you say the fact that they were reversing a U-Haul in their direction belongs in the headline? Don’t you think a reasonable person could believe your suggested headline makes it sound like there was no cause?

It's top story on CNN, WP, ABC news, and 2nd story on NYT website.

Not sure what the TV is showing but seems like the websites are covering it. Language is "huge crowds," and "millions expected across nation."

Public Health Is Outgunned: A Conversation w Science Communicators Katelyn Jetelina and Jessica Steier Podcast Episode · Why Should I Trust You? · 10/09/2025 · 1h 15m

Highly recommend this conversation with two of today’s leading science communicators, who offer their insights on both the challenges and opportunities facing science & health communication.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/p...

How Teachers Can Talk to Students About Charlie Kirk's Assassination Avoiding discussion of difficult topics in school is a missed learning opportunity.

“You don’t know who people are online. If you see somebody post a call for an ‘eye for an eye’, for example, you know they could be an American who is airing a reprehensible viewpoint, or they could be a foreign influence agent trying to deepen division.” - NLP's @peteradams.bsky.social @edweek.org

No need to be patronizing here. We disagree. Thanks for the back-and-forth.

Honestly don't see this piece as doing that, so it seems we'll have to disagree on that. Certainly nothing in this piece worthy of writing off the AP as a news source entirely. (Interestingly, many conservatives feel that the AP is unmistakably biased against Trump. A view I also don't agree with.)

I must have missed that coverage. Can you share a link?

Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

E.g. if you were to go to www.propublica.org, or www.pbs.org/newshour/ or apnews.com (to name a few possibilities) right now, you may well find important reporting that didn't find its way into your algorithmically-controlled social media feed.

Are there news organizations (local, national, international) whose reporting you find to be honest, in pursuit of the truth, fair, accurate and free of obvious bias? If so, you can 1) download their apps and get notifications 2) make opening that app part of your media diet/routine.