1. Fact checking is usually biased.
2. The more sensational the headline, the higher the chance of garbage journalism and bias.
3. The more boring nuance the better the chance of accuracy.
If I was building a news ranking engine I would use these principles. It would probably be at least somewhat useful in filtering out the garbage, except no one would use it because the articles near the top wouldn’t get people to click, and the only possible revenue stream would need to be paid since it can’t be optimized for engagement and still function.
Boring can also have bias, frequently in the form of damping bad news or a painful action.
On HN, shutdown and departure posts tend strongly in this direction. It's a general and widespread PR tactic.
There's also the distraction (or bread-and-circuses) model of propaganda. The former Page 3 Girl in the Sun, sport, celebrity gossip, or horse-race political coverage come to mind.
I once heard someone on a podcast (forget who) propose that the #1 thing that the social media platforms could do to promote accuracy is to establish a "moderation filter" -- something that looks for extreme language, and down-weights it.
It's interesting to think about what the unintended consequences of this might be. An entire media of passive-aggressive political intrigue?
1. Fact checking is usually biased. 2. The more sensational the headline, the higher the chance of garbage journalism and bias. 3. The more boring nuance the better the chance of accuracy.
If I was building a news ranking engine I would use these principles. It would probably be at least somewhat useful in filtering out the garbage, except no one would use it because the articles near the top wouldn’t get people to click, and the only possible revenue stream would need to be paid since it can’t be optimized for engagement and still function.