The factors for assessing the news score are broken or misplaced. For example this piece of news gets less than 5: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-may-r

The factors for assessing the news score are broken or misplaced. For example this piece of news gets less than 5: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-may-run-short-cash-after-june-1-without-debt-limit-hike-treasury-2023-05-01/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-may-run-short-cash-aft... Yet it’s certainly important, affecting a large number of people, and matching other criteria. As someone who works in media I agree with the premise this comes from, but the implementation is a typical examples of the complexities and nuances that LLMs do not get. Also you’re just under the illusion to escape an agenda, but you’re just swapping human agendas for a technobabble view of journalism that is arid as it can possibly get.