Apart from when people make shit up
like the former much celebrated darling of the left, Johann Hari, good and bad is entirely subjective. Your proposal sounds like censorship. Who decides who's good or bad? You? The tax dodgers that are Google?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Tue 17 Feb 2015, 20:29,
Reply)
Accurate and Inaccurate is not subjective.
Google order their news via an algorithym. I'd just like to see one that takes into account how much proven bullshit the author has written before. I imagine Full Fact have quite a lot of data for that.
Don't see why that would be any more censorship than any other internet directory.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 17 Feb 2015, 20:38,
Reply)
That was the point I tried to make in my subject line.
Bullshit is bad journalism. But journalism that contains an opinion you don't like or agree with doesn't make it bad. Nor is popular journalism good by virtue of its popularity. There is some great journalism in the New Yorker for example, but it tends to be very long, worthy and so detailed as to verge on being dull, certainly for those with a short attention span. But no aggregate algorithm essentially designed to get clicks is ever going to feature that. And that's all the Internet really wants: clicks
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Tue 17 Feb 2015, 20:53,
Reply)
