The article is about "suspicious sentences in news", and media are news producers.
This is one thing I can blame them for, due to: media needn't be objective - that's not their mission - their mission is to make money, unless they're non-profit (how many of them is ?).
They use deception, to make you believe that news they produced is objective, and you shouldn't look for sources (which often are well hidden or absent), and assuming that news they produce is compatible with your worldview, you won't look for sources - you're their customer.
I'm sure you're able to divide media by political views they support - if they're objective why it's possible ?
The use of deception, means they're not good source of truth.
The main reason I found HN and stayed here, is its news quality (almost no political bs, and really close to the source).
So how do you propose we function as a democracy if any media source that covers political issues is so full of shit that there is no point in even considering it?
Your perspective is extreme, but it is a very important concern. If only someone could try to create additional information layers to help you navigate a medium that is potentially riddled with dubious claims. Maybe that person could call the project "Truth Goggles" or something.
So how do you propose we function as a democracy if any media source that covers political issues is so full of shit that there is no point in even considering it?
From my perspective, for democracy, it's very important to have independent, non-profit media that provide raw stream of information - e.g. A/V stream from congress, major events etc. - that while being boring would provide unbiased stream of facts. For news - transcripts, photos, videos, documents, all without commentary. That would allow to compare "revelations" served by other media, with facts.
If only someone could try to create additional information layers to help you navigate a medium that is potentially riddled with dubious claims. Maybe that person could call the project "Truth Goggles" or something.
It would be great, if I could trust it - its sources (evidence) should be explicit.
Sounds like we do, in fact, agree. The full title of the thesis is: "Truth Goggles: Automatic Incorporation of Context and Primary Sources to Enable Critical Media Consumption"
This tool won't tell you what to think; it will merely remind you to think.
