Indeed. The company makes money from advertising, so advertisers are its most important readers. This is true, to a greater or lesser extent, for any media tha

Indeed. The company makes money from advertising, so advertisers are its most important readers. This is true, to a greater or lesser extent, for any media that sells ad space. Some organizations maintain "Chinese walls" between the ad side and the editorial side, but these are businesses and they ultimately have to answer to their bottom lines. That's true for Fox News, the Washington Post, or a Financial Times supplement – they are all chasing money with their brand and curating content that conforms to the expectations advertisers have of said brand. Rolling Stone is an 'edgy' magazine, so they publish articles that critique America's rapacious capitalism, but they still run full-page adverts for Apple products. So, speaking as an editor, I believe it is possible to address some of the questions about truth above with an algorithm, but not all. There isn't a substitute for reading with a skeptical eye, doing one's own research, balancing views from experts, and filtering that against the influence money has on the source's position. A computer could make some of that easier, but if someone offers me a digital product that helps me verify the truth of articles I read, for the low, low cost of only $2/month, I'm still going to doubt the veracity of what I'm getting. I heard a story once that sort of speaks to the issues you describe. A group of American journalists went visited Moscow in the late 80s to visit the former Soviet counterparts. They discussed life in each others' countries and shared perspectives on working conditions in their trade. One American asked, "What was it like, being directed by the communists as to what you could and could not print?" A Russian journalist responded, "Much the same as being directed by capitalists."