Heh, this takes me back, due to the "Slayers" anime series. Although it looks a bit like a juvenile history (fantasy, magic, demons), the background story takes a lot from Ars Goetia, like the demons' seals and whatnot. A huge wikipedia rabbit hole :)
Another potential alternative: large trustworthy media outlets form a committee themselves, develop some review process for adding a stamp to the top of their sites that says something like "American Online Journalist" and thereby encourage good journalism in a way that's good for business without interference with the free market.
Then what? People, who are reading Daily Mail, will say 'oh nooo it doesn't have the stamp'? No, doubt you care about these things if you're reading it.
And you know what? It's fine. If we don't like some things and don't see them right, doesn't mean that everyone else should. Some people like tabloids and that's alright.
I absolutely agree with you. My idea is that perhaps the worst thing about a site that claims to report news but doesn't do good journalism is just that it claims to report news. I don't think people would or should stop reading sites that don't have the stamp, I just think there are ways to allow for macro-organizations without suggesting that "the way we do it is the only way, except for complete government control."
At which point, you open the door to a media cartel that decides what is and isn't worthy to write about. At which point, your stamp becomes worse than useless, it becomes a sign of 'quality' to the misinformed while really being simply a way to say it's been 'approved' by the large media companies.
Trademark law.
A more significant problem is that mainstream media publications often actively dislike each others' editorial stance, so the last thing they want to do is agree on a way of mutually endorsing each others' content. The UK, for example, has one right wing broadsheet, one left wing broadsheet that repeatedly attacks allegedly sloppy journalism at the right wing broadsheet and one notionally centrist broadsheet (run by a media empire that makes a lot of money from tabloids). None of them are likely to be receptive to the idea of certifying each other as being more reliable than other news sources.
Exactly. The best place to hide from the US is staying in a country who won't quickly deliver you to the US with just a fingersnap, like a good dog. Like any EU country would. Even if that means a not so free country.
By that criterion, we shouldn't talk about a murder in our neighborhood, about our children failing at maths, about unemployment... War is worse than all these.
Also, it's not news when every headline every day is "more 150 people dead in war". You think people would keep watching the news, let alone caring about some war far, far away?
BBC seems to be able to cover it almost daily. American "news" virtually never unless there is a talking point some politician is pushing.
American "news" seems to find a reason to talk every hour about the plane mass-murder, many times just saying "we have nothing new to tell you" even the reporters they turn to simply repeat in different words what the anchor JUST SAID.
So why not cover all the countries currently at war in the middle east every hour. They most definitely have news every hour on that one because more people have died. No more people are going to die in that single plane crash despite hundreds of hours of coverage.
Most common symptoms of PFO are described in the article: "migraine headaches, or have altitude sickness at 5,000 feet instead of 10,000 feet, or find yourself panting while doing a slow jog, no matter how often you train."
Also should be noted that there are much many other subtle syndromes that can lead to sudden cardiac death, many are detected accidentally when testing something else (going to the ER because of a car accident)
There's no math formula to detect how and when each of us will die one day.
But startup code doesn't have to be messy. I don't write messier code (to be used in a company that pays me), just because I'm in a hurry, and neither should anyone.
