Elon Musk has an idea
for a website rating journalists
.....................................................................................................................................................
and journalists HATE it. Just like they don't want any competition with THEIR Fake News..they don't want to be rated. They want to continue to lie and deceive with no 'regulation'.
It's important not to refer to this as "regulation". Accountability might be a better word. God knows we have enough regulatory bodies in the bloated, shameful, excuse of a gov't....
I hope this idea gets traction!! There is going to be a lot of bias tho. Those rating journalist poorly based on their exposing/criticizing somebodies favored narrative. That we can guarantee. I think it's worth a try tho.
treat the first amendment exactly the way the second is treated.
I'd like to see it. Musk clearly has reason to make such a site, and if he dons his Neuralink cap, he just might be able to suss out bots and socks.
Even if he can't, it'd be an instructive experiment.
It is as pointless as fact checking sites.
Any website can be manipulated if it has input from outside.
If it doesn't, it is a centralized system.
And we all love them.lol
It will become another site drowned out in noise of opposing opinions, with no resolution to an 'objective' rating on any given journalist.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
the internet has changed everything, and making 'fact checking' sites, or 'journalist rankings', or any other accumulated data like this, is dead.
It's a relic of mindset pre internet.
Trying to control something which cannot be controlled.
Take Vannessa Beeley, and the Sibel edomonds issue at the moment.
Due to sibels attacks on beeley, she has lost all credibility.
Her website is now a laughing stock, rather than respected, as it was only 4 months ago.
Why?
Because no one believed her.. and everyone believes the credibility of Beeley.
Not from lists, but the 'actions' of journalist.
The internet is offering the observation of action to allow people to decide their own opinions, not lists of dissent, attempting to change opinion,( that just adds to the noise.)
consumer reports comes to mind..
why not do the same thing for journalists?
Who writes the opinion?
it seems to me it is just another 'fact checking site', open to abuse..
Consumer reports are held to account, as in the things are tangible.
If you say a car is good, and its crap , it matters.
I agree. There's no bias on whether a car's muffler falls off, or the engine catches on fire. Rating journalists isn't objective enough. The echo chamber will follow this to it's laughable and inevitable end.
It is easier said than done. creating a website to judge fairness of journalist isn't exactly what is needed now. And what's to say the results won't be biased?
I will counter with "what's to say the results will be biased? Any journalist that gets a bad rating is going to say the results were biased, and it will not matter how many Facts are brought out to show the truth of that journalist innuendos, lies, out of context reporting. It will all be Biased. It will all be because he/she/it is a precious little snowflake of a buttercup dressed in frilly pink panties, and he/she/it will cry to everyone saying how bad and horrible Mr. Musk is for coming up with such a biased rating system.
They told him he could not land a spent booster on a platform, they told him he could not make a reliable electric car, they told him he would not be able to...... you get the idea. If he wants it he will do whatever he humanly possible can to do it.
Yeah. but anyone who doesn't like what so so journalist says will give him a bad rating. See this
And that statement comes from the person writing the article. So tell me how they can be an Invaluable service at the same time they are notoriously... Double speak out of the mouth of hte reporter. Fact checkers are Invaluable when they are of use to him, and Notorious if they should ever poo-poo anything he says.
So are they invaluable or not?