28 ms·
> This behavior needs to be called out and there needs to be accountability. However, there is none. Even when the stories are completely fabricated, as happene
by robonerd 4y ago
> This behavior needs to be called out and there needs to be accountability. However, there is none. Even when the stories are completely fabricated, as happened at USA Today recently.
I'd love a browser extension that shows me a crowd-sourced batting average for the author of any article I'm reading online. Something that tells me "Oh, you're reading an article written by journalist Joe Schmoe? Joe has previously written 400 breathless articles about scientists discovering space aliens"
I know I know, technical solution to a social problem. And curating these crowdsourced article tags and statistics would probably be an intractable nightmare. It probably can't hurt much to try though. I think the fundamental problem is there are too many journalists for many individual journalists to develop a reputation in the minds of readers. I read several hundred, maybe a few thousand articles a year, but I could only tell you the names of a handful of journalists at best. There must be some way for technology to help bridge this gap.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoI've heard of newsguard and ground news. Both are biased in favor of "reputable" sources who should have been punished for fake news and haven't (USA Today, NY Times).
- CWuestefeld 4y agoThe idea sounds good, but I don't think it could work in the real world. The result wouldn't be people endorsing the quality of an article, but rather whether the article weighs on their political side of an issue