> Rating news is a terrible idea. Yes, it's like "Stackoverflow for news". Certainly, Stackoverflow-type systems do have their benefits, but those benefits ar

> Rating news is a terrible idea. Yes, it's like "Stackoverflow for news". Certainly, Stackoverflow-type systems do have their benefits, but those benefits are for a very narrow use-case and there's an awful flip-side that the rhetoric and rules in stackoverflow have ever-increasing perverse incentives to reward strange, persnickety behavior. It's great if you're missing some pieces of information here-and-there, but it's awful to use as a tutorial or as a way to understand subject-matter in a holistic fashion. The idea that you can have any kind of self-policing or crowd-sourced mediation of journalistic "facts" vs "baloney" is a pipe-dream. IMHO, the problem is not whether or not a piece of information is "a fact" but rather what other facts are missing, and context of these facts as a whole, and the intention behind the entities brokering facts on your behalf. It's all very easy to point out horrendous bias, and outright lying (just watch "Fox and Friends" for a few minutes), but what about a set of facts which is incomplete? That's just as bad as no facts and it has a name: "disinformation". What we need as consumers of journalism is not necessarily "just the facts" but intelligent and rational analysis that can function even with incomplete information, that draws on not just "available facts" but also a historical basis, that is brave enough to adjust itself as reality warrants. This is necessarily and intrinsically subjective and it will often NOT be recognized as true and be, at times, incredibly unpopular.