Cool, thank you!

As we are now 4 people, I evaluated our results and here they are:

The least resistance was here:
"Risk journalism is needed"

which obviously doesn't say a thing about the quality. But included other statements, it does give also information about it, as the second place with the least resistance is:

"Risk journalists should consider scientists as well as laymen and other professionals in their reporting"

And rank 3 in the least resistance is this proposal, which I find really interesting:

"Sensationalism is harmful to every publication in risk journalism, even though a reporting contains correct facts & figures".

How on earth can majority voting come to such a result if one is forced to choose for only one thing? I am glad you got the idea immediately. So, if a chief editor makes a research on what his readers would like to read, this would be a great method to find that out.

For the sake of better seeing our dialogue I give myself a vote. Which I normally don't do.

Again, thank you so much!