[mojomark]

...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.

"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."

Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.

I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".

[rzzzwilson]

Trust is highly subjective. A lot of people trust certain "flagship" sources like The Times (UK), NY Times, BBC, RussiaToday, Aljazeera, Reuters, etc, but they can have wildly different viewpoints on a particular point of news, yet they are all "trusted" by large numbers of people.

I understand that you want there to be a single source of news/opinion that everyone agrees is trustable, and that would be desirable, but in this era and any foreseeable future that's like wanting world peace: very desirable but ultimately unachievable for a myriad of reasons.