lodibet 711

NoneLauren is a thought leader in Digital Journal’s Insight Forum ( become a member ). Accuracy, fairness, and independence have long defined journalistic standards. As newsrooms embrace data-driven processes with open arms, human judgment, independence, and expertise are confronted by algorithmic systems that prioritize optimization over traditional journalistic values. The rise of algorithms has reshaped journalism, raising urgent questions about journalistic authority and who controls the narrative. Journalistic language is evolving — from informing audiences to appeasing search engines — where traditional values now bow to production demands. With an increased access to information comes an increased competition to be found , trusted and read . The grounding of human judgment, independence and expertise is now confronted by clouded algorithmic requirements in order to get a journalist’s perspective front and centre. What difference, if any, do these human standards make when machines become essential members of the news-production team? How are these principles transformed when algorithms are introduced into journalism, influencing everything from story selection to content distribution? From story selection to distribution, algorithms now shape every stage of the news cycle, guided by audience-engagement metrics. While technology is often seen and understood as objective, algorithms are fundamentally influenced by the values of their human creators and the datasets they have selected. This becomes particularly controversial when these algorithms are then introduced as a way to prioritize content in the newsroom based on predictions of potential audience engagement. Social media platforms have become gatekeepers of news, with algorithms deciding what content gets seen. This reliance forces newsrooms to prioritize algorithm-friendly content, often at the expense of journalistic integrity and independence. The prioritization of sensationalism over depth, or even fact, as well as the offer of personalization, become unintended consequences of adopting an “objective” technology, slowly but surely eroding journalistic integrity in favour of click-driven content. The algorithmic landscape’s first substantive challenge to journalistic standards lies in exacerbating an already complex tension: the aspiration for impartiality versus the need for engagement. With algorithms dictating publication and distribution, journalists face mounting pressure to craft stories that inform — and captivate. This balancing act is further complicated by the ways algorithms shape not just distribution but also the content itself. When it comes to the actual articles we read, the impact of algorithms becomes more concerning still as we are seeing a new trend in automated articles created by large language models and algorithmic compilations of content. Automated journalism excels at summarizing data but lacks the nuance, depth, and critical perspective that define high-quality reporting. This of course can lead to fears of replacing journalists and eroding diverse human perspectives. In a surprising turn of events, it is precisely the human bias, the lack of perceived objectivity, that gives journalism the edge over tech-generated content. It is human judgment, contextual understanding and the ethical considerations of journalists that the algorithms cannot replicate. Consider, for example, a breaking news story about a local protest. An algorithm might prioritize articles based on engagement metrics — boosting headlines that feature sensational phrases like “clashes erupt” or “violent riots.” However, a journalist on the ground brings a nuanced perspective: they can recognize the protest’s underlying social and economic issues, interview participants to understand their motivations, and ensure that the coverage reflects diverse voices, not just the most clickable angles. Algorithms lack the ability to question the narratives it promotes or to see beyond the data. This is where human judgment is indispensable — it ensures that the story isn’t reduced to a sensational headline but instead provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of the event, fostering informed discourse rather than polarization. Maintaining this positionality in light of the previous argument for click-based sensationalism then becomes a challenge to journalistic authority and authenticity — is it still journalism if accuracy and public interest are challenged by engagement-based models? Transparency and disclosure have emerged as central themes in our analysis. As algorithms become more embedded in journalism, the need to openly acknowledge their influence on news production finds itself rising to the forefront. Despite its growing influence, the industry struggles to disclose algorithmic involvement to audiences. Without proper disclosure, the lines between human editorial judgment and algorithmic decision-making blur, raising serious ethical questions. We have all heard at this point that bias and transparency are not exactly strong points for algorithms, especially given that they are trained on historical (and historically biased) data. The perpetuation and exacerbation of societal biases and inequalities then becomes even more prevalent in the magnifying glass that is large data models and artificial intelligence. Disclosure of use of algorithms and AI to generate content and push it to readers is not something that is yet regulated which puts the responsibility back on the company and its readership to determine accountability for transparency and erosion of the human in the loop. To me, the human in the loop represents more than just oversight — it’s about maintaining a vital connection between technology and humanity. It’s the journalist’s ability to apply ethics, context, and critical thinking to ensure the stories we consume reflect the complexity of the world, not just the calculations of an algorithm and the priorities of the people who created it. Without this human element, journalism risks losing the empathy and insight that make it more than just a delivery system for information — it becomes the soul of storytelling itself. We are now living in an era where perception often is reality, especially in journalism and media. The way stories are framed, the headlines we scroll past, and the platforms that surface them shape what audiences believe to be true. Algorithms, designed to optimize for engagement, have exacerbated this phenomenon by prioritizing content that aligns with existing biases, incites strong emotions, or simply keeps users scrolling. In this system, the loudest voices and most sensational stories dominate, while nuance and context are often left behind. The danger is clear: when algorithms amplify perception over fact, they don’t just distort the narrative—they redefine it entirely. Consider the rise of “fake news” during election cycles or the selective visibility of certain voices in social movements. An algorithm prioritizing divisive content because it drives clicks might inadvertently tilt public perception, making a fringe viewpoint appear mainstream or a misleading headline go viral. In this reality, perception is not just shaped by the truth — it becomes the truth for many consumers. Without human judgment to interrogate these narratives, journalism risks becoming a tool of manipulation rather than a force for accountability. The human in the loop, then, isn’t just a safeguard; it’s the last line of defense against a world where algorithms define reality. The key question isn’t what to do about journalism’s changing landscape — it’s how these shifts reshape news-reporting standards. When algorithms dictate content visibility, core journalistic principles like accuracy, independence, and public trust are forced to adapt. Can these values survive in an engagement-driven system, or must they evolve? As technology continues to dominate, journalism faces a crossroads: reconcile traditional ideals with algorithmic realities, or risk losing its relevance and authority. Dr. Lauren Dwyer is an Assistant Professor with Mount Royal University's Information Design undergraduate program researching the role of emerging technologies in communication studies. Dr. Dwyer holds a PhD from Toronto Metropolitan University and York University’s joint Communication and Culture program, where she explored how social robots can be designed to enhance human communication and emotional experiences. Formerly SAIT’s Academic Chair for Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, she oversaw the development of programs that focus on utilizing data and AI to drive innovation in various fields. Her research interests currently lie at the intersection of emerging technology and human communication, particularly in relation to social robots and artificial intelligence. By approaching these complex topics through a communication studies lens, she has been able to shed new light on the potential impact of technology on human emotions and social connections. Lauren is a member of Digital Journal's Insight Forum.lodibet 711 。

Surf Air Mobility Unveils Four-Phase Transformation Plan and Updated Investor Presentation

A 7-year-old rivalry between tech leaders Elon Musk and Sam Altman over who should run OpenAI and prevent an artificial intelligence "dictatorship" is now heading to a federal judge as Musk seeks to halt the ChatGPT maker's ongoing shift into a for-profit company. Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the artificial intelligence company earlier this year alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good rather than pursuing profits. Musk has since escalated the dispute, adding new claims and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business more fully. The world's richest man, whose companies include Tesla, SpaceX and social media platform X, last year started his own rival AI company, xAI. Musk says it faces unfair competition from OpenAI and its close business partner Microsoft, which has supplied the huge computing resources needed to build AI systems such as ChatGPT. “OpenAI and Microsoft together exploiting Musk’s donations so they can build a for-profit monopoly, one now specifically targeting xAI, is just too much,” says Musk's filing that alleges the companies are violating the terms of Musk’s foundational contributions to the charity. OpenAI is filing a response Friday opposing Musk’s requested order, saying it would cripple OpenAI’s business and mission to the advantage of Musk and his own AI company. A hearing is set for January before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI's CEO. Musk also sought to be CEO and in an email outlined a plan where he would “unequivocally have initial control of the company” but said that would be temporary. He grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence , or AGI. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity. “The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI," said a 2017 email to Musk from co-founders Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman. “You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you.” In the same email, titled “Honest Thoughts,” Sutskever and Brockman also voiced concerns about Altman's desire to be CEO and whether he was motivated by “political goals.” Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO, and has remained so except for a period last year when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced. OpenAI published the messages Friday in a blog post meant to show its side of the story, particularly Musk's early support for the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit business so it could raise money for the hardware and computer power that AI needs. It was Musk, through his wealth manager Jared Birchall, who first registered “Open Artificial Technologies Technologies, Inc.”, a public benefit corporation, in September 2017. Then came the “Honest Thoughts” email that Musk described as the “final straw.” “Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” Musk wrote back. OpenAI said Musk later proposed merging the startup into Tesla before resigning as the co-chair of OpenAI's board in early 2018. Musk didn't immediately respond to emailed requests for comment sent to his companies Friday. Asked about his frayed relationship with Musk at a New York Times conference last week, Altman said he felt “tremendously sad” but also characterized Musk’s legal fight as one about business competition. “He’s a competitor and we’re doing well,” Altman said. He also said at the conference that he is “not that worried” about the Tesla CEO’s influence with President-elect Donald Trump. OpenAI said Friday that Altman plans to make a $1 million personal donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, joining a number of tech companies and executives who are working to improve their relationships with the incoming administration. —————————— The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement allowing OpenAI access to part of the AP’s text archives.

GE Aerospace stock rises Thursday, still underperforms market(Bloomberg) — The path ahead for Toronto-Dominion Bank is rocky, but analysts at Jefferies Financial Group Inc. are predicting a recovery in the stock’s valuation as they turn bullish on the outlook for the Canadian lender and name it a top pick for 2025. Analysts led by John Aiken upgraded Canada’s second-largest bank to buy from hold and raised their price target on the stock to C$90. While Aiken doesn’t see a rebound in valuation happening in the near term, he expects it to improve as 2025 progresses. “The challenges are not insurmountable, and we anticipate that several questions will be answered over the next year and believe that TD’s multiple will recover some lost ground,” Aiken wrote in a note published Thursday. “We are already seeing TD’s valuation rebound as investors attempt to pick the bottom.” Toronto-Dominion has had a difficult 2024, with US money-laundering probes weighing on the stock. The company resolved those cases in October, pleading guilty to failing to prevent money laundering by drug cartels and other criminals. It also agreed to pay almost $3.1 billion in fines and other penalties, and faces a cap on its American assets. The lender last week suspended medium-term financial targets amid a review of company strategy as the incoming chief executive officer, Raymond Chun, seeks to move past the settlement. Shares in Toronto-Dominion rose 0.4% in Toronto on Thursday, extending gains for a fourth straight session. The stock now has six buy recommendations, seven holds and two sells among analysts tracked by Bloomberg. With 2024 drawing to a close, Toronto-Dominion is not only on track to end the year as the worst performer among Canada’s Big Six banks, but the lender is also set to have its worst year since 2008. While anti-money-laundering issues and subsequent remediation are “damaging” to Toronto-Dominion’s reputation with regulators and investors, Aiken noted that — outside of incremental expenses and erosion of capital from the fines — it has not really disrupted operations on a client level. Furthermore, Aiken said the asset cap doesn’t necessarily preclude growth in the lender’s US retail banking segment or affect the operations of its other subsidiaries. “We believe that the downside is limited,” Aiken said. “Admittedly, the growth of its US retail banking platform has been somewhat constrained but there is no real structural change to TD’s operations.” Aiken sees Raymond Chun taking the helm as a “clean slate” for Toronto-Dominion. The subsequent release of a revised strategy should give investors a “catalyst for multiple recovery as some uncertainty is removed” on its outlook, he said. “While consensus earnings imply no growth in 2025, essentially in line with management’s statements and below the 7% average forecast for its peers, we believe the stage is being set for a better second half performance,” Aiken said. —With assistance from Katrina Compoli. (Updates stock move and chart.)

Vanuatu's teen swimmers make a splash with personal bests at World Championships

OpenAI's legal battle with Elon Musk reveals internal turmoil over avoiding AI 'dictatorship'Vance takes on a more visible transition role, working to boost Trump’s most contentious picks

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Diamondbacks Spring Training tickets are set to go on sale Friday at 10 a.m. The Diamondbacks' Spring Training schedule begins on Feb. 21 at Salt River Fields at Talking Stick against the Colorado Rockies. >> Download the 12News app for the latest local breaking news straight to your phone. There are eight weekend games on the Spring Training schedule this year for the Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks only have one evening home game on the Spring Training schedule on March 6 at 6:40 p.m. New this year, the Diamondbacks are offering a "Family 4-Pack" that includes four lawn tickets, four hot dogs and four sodas. The four packs are available for Sunday home games. The Diamondbacks finished the 2024 season in third place in the National League West with an 89-73 record. Second baseman Ketel Marte finished third in National League MVP voting in 2024. Watch 12News for free You can now watch 12News content anytime, anywhere thanks to the 12+ app! The free 12+ app from 12News lets users stream live events — including daily newscasts like "Today in AZ" and "12 News" and our daily lifestyle program, "Arizona Midday"—on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV . 12+ showcases live video throughout the day for breaking news, local news, weather and even an occasional moment of Zen showcasing breathtaking sights from across Arizona. Users can also watch on-demand videos of top stories, local politics, I-Team investigations, Arizona-specific features and vintage videos from the 12News archives. Roku: Add the channel from the Roku store or by searching for "12 News KPNX." Amazon Fire TV: Search for "12 News KPNX" to find the free 12+ app to add to your account , or have the 12+ app delivered directly to your Amazon Fire TV through Amazon.com or the Amazon app.Arizona WR Tetairoa McMillan to enter 2025 NFL Draft

FIR registered against Sikh journalist in Pak

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers formally asked a judge Monday to throw out his hush money criminal conviction , arguing continuing the case would present unconstitutional “disruptions to the institution of the Presidency.“ In a filing made public Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers told Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan that dismissal is warranted because of the “overwhelming national mandate granted to him by the American people on November 5, 2024.” They also cited President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, who had been convicted of tax and gun charges . “President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently,’" Trump’s legal team wrote. The Manhattan district attorney, they claimed, had engaged in the type of political theater "that President Biden condemned.” Prosecutors will have until Dec. 9 to respond. They have said they will fight any efforts to dismiss the case but have indicated a willingness to delay the sentencing until after Trump’s second term ends in 2029. In their filing Monday, Trump's attorneys dismissed the idea of holding off sentencing until Trump is out of office as a “ridiculous suggestion.” Following Trump’s election victory last month, Merchan halted proceedings and indefinitely postponed his sentencing, previously scheduled for late November, to allow the defense and prosecution to weigh in on the future of the case. He also delayed a decision on Trump’s prior bid to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. Trump has been fighting for months to reverse his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress her claim that they had sex a decade earlier. He says they did not and denies any wrongdoing. Taking a swipe at Bragg and New York City, as Trump often did throughout the trial, the filing argues that dismissal would also benefit the public by giving him and “the numerous prosecutors assigned to this case a renewed opportunity to put an end to deteriorating conditions in the City and to protect its residents from violent crime.” Clearing Trump, the lawyers added, would also allow him to “to devote all of his energy to protecting the Nation.” The defense filing was signed by Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who represented Trump during the trial and have since been selected by the president-elect to fill senior roles at the Justice Department. A dismissal would erase Trump’s historic conviction, sparing him the cloud of a criminal record and possible prison sentence. Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted criminal to be elected to the office. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. Merchan hasn’t set a timetable for a decision. Merchan could also decide to uphold the verdict and proceed to sentencing, delay the case until Trump leaves office, wait until a federal appeals court rules on Trump’s parallel effort to get the case moved out of state court or choose some other option. Prosecutors had cast the payout as part of a Trump-driven effort to keep voters from hearing salacious stories about him. Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels. Trump later reimbursed him, and Trump’s company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses — concealing what they really were, prosecutors alleged. Trump has pledged to appeal the verdict if the case is not dismissed. He and his lawyers said the payments to Cohen were properly categorized as legal expenses for legal work. A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can’t cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct. Trump’s lawyers cited the ruling to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made during his first term. Prosecutors disagreed and said the evidence in question was only “a sliver” of their case. If the verdict stands and the case proceeds to sentencing, Trump’s punishments would range from a fine to probation to up to four years in prison — but it’s unlikely he’d spend any time behind bars for a first-time conviction involving charges in the lowest tier of felonies. Because it is a state case, Trump would not be able to pardon himself once he returns to office. Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes.IShowSpeed reveals plans to fight Jake Paul in 2025

None

5 things to watch in the Chicago Bears-Minnesota Vikings game, plus our Week 12 predictionsShailene Woodley still cries over ‘toxic’ Aaron Rodgers relationship