4 ms·

I would gladly pay for something like what is advocated for in this article, but I'm not aware of anything like it. A news publication that: * Has the goal of

I would gladly pay for something like what is advocated for in this article, but I'm not aware of anything like it. A news publication that: * Has the goal of filtering rather than flooding * No ads * No pop-ins 3/4 of the way through the article telling me about four other articles I should read * No endless scrolling * Upfront about bias * Cites sources

smsm42 9y ago
Wikipedia? And Wikinews? Probably not "upfront about bias" part, but the rest matches pretty well.
- shmageggy 9y ago
  I don't see how wikis could serve as filters. Seems like their comprehensive nature runs contrary to filtering by design.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    Despite the comprehensive nature, there are notability and POV neutrality requirements in Wikis. Of course, you may need even narrower filters, in which case I guess these would need additional tooling?
aag 9y ago
I am a huge fan of Blendle, the news micropayments system, which meets the first four of these criteria. The last two depend on the underlying news organization.
- shmageggy 9y ago
  This looks really intriguing. I've signed up for the beta. Thanks!
theonemind 9y ago
This actually reminds me of Delayed Gratification https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/ . I don't think they make an online version of anything, though. You get it in print. A quarter (3 month) time delay helps with the filtering. No bother about what Trump tweeted on any given day. Kind of like a history book being written in "real time".
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No bother about what Trump tweeted on any given day. So it's a fair bet that nothing he tweets is likely to affect you. Many others don't enjoy that luxury.
- shmageggy 9y ago
  This looks great, and I like the idea of print. Three months is a longer lag than what I had in mind, but it might still make for a good supplement. I'd like to preview the writing before I throw down $72, but I can't seem to find any sample articles online.
qznc 9y ago
Correctiv is a non-profit org: https://correctiv.org/en/correctiv/ https://correctiv.org/en/correctiv/ They are part of a large network: https://gijn.org/member/ https://gijn.org/member/
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
One of the things, as someone who pays a subscription, that annoys me intensely about the BBC is that they follow the pathological behaviours of the paid news outlets. Most egregious is their hiding of information to increase page views. Then there's things like adverts for their own shows that don't tell you when they're on, interstitials in free-to-air programming, burying the lede to increase page views. The biggest (by visual size) story at the moment on http://bbc.co.uk/news http://bbc.co.uk/news is "Banned in China? Why Gigi and Katy missed big show" which is just "Singers without visas not included in advertising show for lingerie company". Why they feel the need to copy the worst traits of paid/ad supported content is beyond me.
standupstandup 9y ago
Surely all news publications filter? That's a large component of their bias, if not the largest: what information they choose to highlight and which to suppress. Note that the Intercept meets most of your criteria when it can, and Breitbart meets all but the "no ads" criteria. Both cite and link to sources at least sometimes, when those sources are citable.
adjkant 9y ago
This may be what you want on many fronts: https://thecorrespondent.com/ https://thecorrespondent.com/ https://thecorrespondent.com/principles https://thecorrespondent.com/principles * The Correspondent is openly subjective * The Correspondent is an antidote to the daily news grind * The Correspondent is entirely free of ads * The Correspondent does not strive to maximize profits Example Article: https://thecorrespondent.com/4664/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions/179307480-39a74caf https://thecorrespondent.com/4664/why-do-the-poor-make-such-...
- shmageggy 9y ago
  Looks great, I've signed up! Thanks!
kristofferR 9y ago
The Economist is a great alternative, it filters out all the pointless crap that doesn't really matter

smsm42 9y ago

Wikipedia? And Wikinews? Probably not "upfront about bias" part, but the rest matches pretty well.

shmageggy 9y ago
I don't see how wikis could serve as filters. Seems like their comprehensive nature runs contrary to filtering by design.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Despite the comprehensive nature, there are notability and POV neutrality requirements in Wikis. Of course, you may need even narrower filters, in which case I guess these would need additional tooling?

aag 9y ago

I am a huge fan of Blendle, the news micropayments system, which meets the first four of these criteria. The last two depend on the underlying news organization.

shmageggy 9y ago
This looks really intriguing. I've signed up for the beta. Thanks!

theonemind 9y ago

This actually reminds me of Delayed Gratification https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/ . I don't think they make an online version of anything, though. You get it in print. A quarter (3 month) time delay helps with the filtering. No bother about what Trump tweeted on any given day. Kind of like a history book being written in "real time".

anigbrowl 9y ago
No bother about what Trump tweeted on any given day. So it's a fair bet that nothing he tweets is likely to affect you. Many others don't enjoy that luxury.
shmageggy 9y ago
This looks great, and I like the idea of print. Three months is a longer lag than what I had in mind, but it might still make for a good supplement. I'd like to preview the writing before I throw down $72, but I can't seem to find any sample articles online.

qznc 9y ago

Correctiv is a non-profit org: https://correctiv.org/en/correctiv/ https://correctiv.org/en/correctiv/ They are part of a large network: https://gijn.org/member/ https://gijn.org/member/

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

One of the things, as someone who pays a subscription, that annoys me intensely about the BBC is that they follow the pathological behaviours of the paid news outlets. Most egregious is their hiding of information to increase page views. Then there's things like adverts for their own shows that don't tell you when they're on, interstitials in free-to-air programming, burying the lede to increase page views. The biggest (by visual size) story at the moment on http://bbc.co.uk/news http://bbc.co.uk/news is "Banned in China? Why Gigi and Katy missed big show" which is just "Singers without visas not included in advertising show for lingerie company". Why they feel the need to copy the worst traits of paid/ad supported content is beyond me.

standupstandup 9y ago

Surely all news publications filter? That's a large component of their bias, if not the largest: what information they choose to highlight and which to suppress. Note that the Intercept meets most of your criteria when it can, and Breitbart meets all but the "no ads" criteria. Both cite and link to sources at least sometimes, when those sources are citable.

adjkant 9y ago

This may be what you want on many fronts: https://thecorrespondent.com/ https://thecorrespondent.com/ https://thecorrespondent.com/principles https://thecorrespondent.com/principles * The Correspondent is openly subjective * The Correspondent is an antidote to the daily news grind * The Correspondent is entirely free of ads * The Correspondent does not strive to maximize profits Example Article: https://thecorrespondent.com/4664/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions/179307480-39a74caf https://thecorrespondent.com/4664/why-do-the-poor-make-such-...

shmageggy 9y ago
Looks great, I've signed up! Thanks!

kristofferR 9y ago

The Economist is a great alternative, it filters out all the pointless crap that doesn't really matter