A way to achieve zero propaganda, bias, and manipulation of public opinion in a news publication. Peer review combined with an open scoring system ensures that articles report what happened, but not why it happened and what it means.
Let people think for themselves without trying to influence their conclusions.
Gain readers' trust by transparently removing manipulation, propaganda, and bias from your reporting.
Instead of spreading propaganda, report the actual news.
A news site known for zero tolerance of propaganda, bias, and manipulation of public opinion. If something can't be reported without bias, then don't report it at all. Pass on that one and let other outlets handle it the usual way.
Some things to watch out for
News media manipulates the public opinion by:
Selectively reporting on events that fit the desired story.
Sprinkling opinion all over the facts.
Explaining what the events mean.
Clever use of words to elicit the desired emotions in readers.
Skipping or barely mentioning events that don't support the desired story.
Reputation score of writers/reviewers
On this objective news site all writers double as reviewers. Each news article has to be reviewed by at least 5 other writers before being published. After it goes live, the readers can see which reviewers approved it. Their reputation is on the line equally as the writer's.
Not only that... The readers can see which writers subsequently saw the article. If they saw it, they have an obligation to point out any wrongdoings. Their reputation is on the line just because they saw the article and didn't react. If they don't object to anything stated in the article, it is assumed that they endorse it as unbiased.
Every writer starts with maximum score (100%) and lose it with each mistake they make. When their points fall below a threshold they can no longer work for the news site.
Every reviewer seeing the article has up to an hour to object and point out anything that even remotely resembles:
manipulation of the reader's feelings about something
state something without referencing a source (the source's reputation is added automatically, see below).
Whenever a reviewer points out something that should be addressed, they clear all other reviewers' reputation about that particular thing. Only if all reviewers miss something that later turns out to be wrong, do all of them get a negative mark on their reputation.
This puts all reviewers/writers under an obligation to object and point out anything that can be considered foul play.
How do the reviewers get checked? By the other side, of course. Every other media outlet that promotes the opposing viewpoint will be happy to point out anything wrong and poke holes in what the "non-biased media" is trying to do.
Reputation score of sources
When repeating information obtained from 3rd party sources, the journalist always mentions the source of information. Next to the source the system automatically appends the chances (in percentage) that the information is true.
The truth percentage is calculated based on historic statistics for each particular source. If in the future it turns out that the source was wrong, this goes on its record and lowers the source's overall truth percentage score. When a source's percentage falls below a treshold, the news site can no longer use that source.
Weeding out of bad sources.
People learn to intuitively take every piece of news with a grain of salt.
Increases the source's obligation to stand behind what they report and pay the consequence when it backfires.
Open unbiased press reputation score system
People with reputable press accreditation get to publicly call each other out via the reputation score system. Any journalist can present a case against another. They point to sentences within a specific article and state what is wrong with them (with evidence if possible). A randomly chosen set of 9 journalists have to weigh in to decide whether the journalist/article in question loses points.
If the journalist loses points, so do all others who reviewed that particular article (menitoned in paragraphs above).
The article has to be edited/re-reviewed within 48 hours or it gets marked as biased/propaganda. All changes go on record and a historic versions of each article can be seen. People can see what was edited and why.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Please leave the feedback on this idea