Automated Sports News: The Good, the Bad and the Unlikely
Automation is shaping the future of sports reporting in new ways whether journalists like it or not.
What if I said you might have read a sports article that was written by a robot? Okay, so that’s not entirely true unless you’re an avid lover of Minor League Baseball. However, it’s only a matter of time before we see the technological advancement of automation across all sporting news.
Automated Insights, who has developed software that automatically generates news stories from sports data without any human intervention, has just wrapped up its third season of mechanical coverage on Minor League Baseball. Since 2016 they have worked with the Associated Press (AP) to produce automated stories on every game in the lower leagues.
Robots are beginning to take over sports journalism.
Take a look at a snippet of an automated article that was produced by a machine on GCL Tigers West’s 10–1 win over GCL Yankees near the end of this season:
‘John Valente had three hits and two RBI as the GCL Tigers West defeated the GCL Yankees West 10–1 in the first game of a doubleheader on Wednesday.
GCL Tigers West batted around in the first inning, sending 13 batters to the plate and scoring eight runs, including two RBI each from Julio Martinez and Eliezer Alfonzo.’
It looks like a human could have written this piece which is rather scary.
Kristian Hammond, the CTO and co-founder of Narrative Science, predicts that machines will write 90% of the news in just under nine years. But is automation the future of news in every sport and what are the pros and cons as seen from this year’s coverage in Minor League Baseball?
The Good
1. Speed
Automated Insights claim its algorithms can deliver up to 2,000 articles per second. As soon as the final whistle has gone in a match, a detailed report can be generated instantly just like the example above. Automation allows newsrooms to break and publish stories faster than any human ever could.
The ability for these algorithms to instantly break down large amounts of data into an easily digestible article for us readers can dictate a rapid pace for news delivery — this a process that not one or many journalists could compete with. As long as the data is available straight after a match has finished for automation to work, the stories produced would be incredibly newsworthy in a time where being fast is crucial.
2. Frees Up Journalists
With automation being able to cover routine match reports as seen with baseball means journalists would no longer have to worry about this. Mundane mechanical articles will be in the hands of robots. Human journalists can turn their focus towards more investigative work where automation is currently ineffective as it’s not data-driven.
Automated news could see a change in skill set for sports journalists in the future. Andreas Graefe advises journalists to develop skills that algorithms cannot perform, such as in-depth analysis, interviewing, and investigative reporting.
I do understand that there’s a concern that automation is not an entirely good thing. If journalists routines and practices are being taken over by robots, then some may see it causing a loss of jobs for humans.
Automation is still in development with a need for journalists to be overseers in what these machines are producing to ensure it is correct. For now, the use of automation is an assistant to journalists and not a fully fledged replacement.
3. Cost & Coverage
Currently, Automated insights and AP cover 142 teams across 13 leagues which produces nearly 10,000 game stories per year. Imagine trying to cover that amount of games in just one sport manually it would take a very long and costly time. Almost Impossible.
A machine doesn’t have to travel all the way to every game to make a story. Instead, it can be fed a set of data from a match which produces news in seconds. Any and every game could be covered from a wide array of sports across the highest divisions to the lowest levels.
The use of automation in the newsroom means publications don’t have to:
- Send journalists to cover every game
- Employ more journalists to increase coverage
Human journalists shouldn’t lose their jobs from this as its more to the point of expanding coverage.
It’s a cost-effective manner of producing news, especially among lower league games as seen with Minor League Baseball. The inexpensiveness of being able to cover more games through automation may generate tailored news for fans of specific teams who may never have had any coverage before.
The Bad
1. Stats
Looking back at Automated Insights recent article on one game of the baseball season there’s a clear focus on statistics. Whether that be the “10–1 win” or “sending 13 batters to the plate and scoring eight runs” it shows the limits of what these stories can include.
Everything in automated articles has to revolve around a number.
It is excellent that statistics works perfectly for baseball with so much information being readily available right after a game finishes to produce an article. If other sports can’t provide data quickly enough, it would take away the speed automation provides with news creation. You would then be getting your news from just a human.
AP executive, Barry Bedlan emphasises the accuracy of data received from a data provider:
“…if a sports organisation cannot give us 100% stamp of approval on accuracy for hours or even days that does not work, it has lost its news value for a newspaper, broadcaster or website.”
The current state of automation in sports news sees stories restricted to just statistics.
2. Missing Context
Following on from the last point the restriction of what automation can write about only scratches the surface of sporting news. The stories currently being created miss out on the context and depth of a game by just providing the score lines. There is no coverage of off-field events, the atmosphere, reaction of the players and more because it is not quantifiable data.
In the paper, ‘When reporters get hands-on with robo-writing’, journalists thought automated news software that relies on single data streams produces one-dimensional stories lacking in context a human could provide.
Human journalists are required to add the intricate details to sports stories to bring them to life for readers.
“A machine will never write a 1500-word look into the delicate issues of homophobia and racism in soccer.” — Elliot Jay
I’ll let Elliot off here for calling Football, Soccer as he makes an excellent point. The simplicity of what automated journalism offers means, for now, it’s just limited to match reporting due to it being numerical.
Already readers are struggling to tell the difference between an automated article and a human written one. Looking at the automated example above what is missing in the language is the passion and personal knowledge that a human possesses.
It does raise a concern that if these automated articles are so formulaic and do not change in style for different publications will we find it boring? Only altering the key variables such as team names, players and scores show a limitation that automation currently has.
3. Saturation
Now I did mention earlier that the ability to cover almost any sporting event in even the lowest leagues through automation is a great thing. I still think it is but producing too much content could provide a challenge making it hard for readers to navigate. Even though it is easy for automation to create stories on any game, many may not be deemed newsworthy to readers. A publication would not post hundreds of sports reports as it would just clog up news feeds.
That’s why articles that Automated Insights produce with AP are posted directly to MiLB.com which acts as a home for all things Minor League Baseball. Newsrooms will have to curate and select the most relevant and newsworthy stories that appeal to their audiences instead of spamming automated content.
Interestingly, there are no current numbers of the readership of automated baseball articles. It’s unknown if this technology is a success or not in increasing readership.
4. Bias and Errors
“AI is only as good as the data behind it.”- Yair Galily
The data provided to generate automated articles needs to be correct to prevent fake or bias news from occurring.
According to former AP executive Lou Ferrara, data for AP’s Minor League recaps was entered by coaches without strict verification, resulting in errors.
This is a major problem.
Newsrooms are not able to entirely rely on automation just yet when the algorithms are unable to detect errors. Journalists are still vital here, with a need to act as gatekeepers to ensure that automated coverage is accurate.
The Unlikely
Automation technology still has a long way to go in the world of sports journalism. Not every piece of sports news can be automated as it’s just not possible yet. What we will see is anything that can be automated will be.
Sports journalists shouldn’t fear losing their jobs just yet as automation is still in its infancy. Humans are still crucial for investigative journalism and in-depth analysis. It would be wrong for newsrooms to fully rely on machines with the potential for errors to occur. Journalists are required to sense-check what is created by algorithms to ensure false news is not published.
Overall, I think automation will be used as a tool for journalists in day-to-day routines helping to make sports news more productive and efficient. We don’t know what the future holds but the first steps taken by automated insights in baseball coverage will surely mean more sports coverage will follow suit to meet the rapid demands of readers and ease the resources of newsrooms.
This blog post was written by a human.
Be sure to follow me on Twitter and Facebook to stay up-to-date on the current issues in sports journalism.
