I didn’t know quitting was a matter of interpretation now.
An objective media rating site would be hard to pull off. One idea is an annotation site that highlights specific words / language used to subtly persuade towards writer’s bias. Rank bias by number of aggregate highlights per outlet.
Example from NYT’s @jordanbpeterson piece:pic.twitter.com/mgiqUmqQyW
-
-
-
It’s not factually inaccurate, but it’s an interesting choice of the many words that would also be factually accurate.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I like this idea much better than a public rating system. Might be some inspiration/lessons from
@textio, they do something similar for writing hiring ads; highlighting phrases that tend to hurt job postings or discourage some people from applying. -
Great analogy, I hadn’t made the connection to Textio. The Genius app had come to mind.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Genius has incredible potential. Finland allows citizens to propose laws online and effectively crowdsource legislation. There are lots of interesting opportunities to constructively “annotate” and fact check.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s exactly the kind of thing
@theknifemedia looks at and brings to light https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/topspin18apr16/ …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This practice is one of the most dishonest employed by supposedly objective writers. If you look for it, it’s literally everywhere
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would like the "objective" opinion from my media friends...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@EricRWeinstein Russell conjugates!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.