Here's an interesting map of news sites that aggregate journalism based on popularity, editorial quality or computer algorithms. This Venn diagram helps us compare NewsTrust and key players in this news filtering space, by showing how they might be ranked visually, by review depth and editorial expertise.
This visualization illustrates differences between the various news evaluation methods practiced by these sites, which fall in three categories: computer-based, popularity-based and quality-based news filters.
We see four primary groups of news sites and aggregators in this space:
• computer-based, automated sites with no user reviews or editors (e.g. Google News)
• popularity-based social sites with automated calculations of user reviews but no editors (e.g. Digg)
• quality-based social sites with both user and editor reviews (e.g. NewsTrust)
• quality-based editorial sites with mostly editor reviews (e.g. FactCheck)
In the computer-based filter category, purely automated aggregators like Google News offer a low-cost, but imperfect solution, because they rely primarily on computer intelligence, which is still limited. Google News partly addresses that issue by relying on the collective judgment of editors for a small group of 4,500 news publications, vetted largely based on business metrics (audience reach, # of employees, # of editors, financial strength).
In the popularity filter category, popularity-based social news networks like Digg, Newsvine or Reddit are also low-cost, but their listings are riddled with misinformation because they rely mostly on untrained reviewers, with no editors -- and only rate the news along a single dimension, which primarily tracks popularity, not quality.
On the other end of the spectrum, editor-led news evaluation services like Fact Check or Journalism.org provide effective quality filters based on in-depth reviews, but are typically limited in their coverage by the fact that they rely on paid editors and/or experts, which makes for a costly evaluation process. And news aggregators like AP, Reuters or NY Times have in-house quality review processes that are also quite effective, but are limited to only their own content. Lastly, partisan media watchdogs like NewsBusters also provide full reviews by editors, but their quality is questionable, because they are often biased by their political agenda.
NewsTrust is unique in that it provides the best of all worlds, combining users, editors and computers in a collaborative evaluation process that focuses on quality journalism. This approach leverages the expertise of professional journalists and amplifies it by training larger groups of citizen volunteers to use our state-of-the-art, non-partisan review tools. In addition, we also use sophisticated computer algorithms to assess information quality based on core journalistic principles, and weigh member ratings based on their expertise and trust levels.
To sum up, here are the key differences between NewsTrust and other news sites:
• we rate journalistic quality, not just popularity
• we invite professional journalists and editors to guide our citizen reviewers
• citizens using our tools can assess news quality as well as professionals
• our multiple-rating evaluations are more reliable than single ratings
• we track ratings for each publication in our source reputation database
• we feature stories from our most trusted sources in our daily listings
To discourage member fraud and gaming, we offer these preventive measures:
• reviewers are identified by their real names
• we rate our reviewers based on the quality of their work
• our reviewers' ratings are weighted based on their own member level
• member levels are based on activity, experience, ratings and transparency
• our staff validates active reviewers for compliance with our terms of service
Independent research by the University of Michigan confirms the reliability of our review process. To find out more, check our study reports.
As this chart illustrates, NewsTrust has a unique opportunity to establish itself early on as the leading news filter and news literacy service in this field, based on journalistic quality, rather than popularity or ideology. We cost-effectively bring the best practices of profession organizations to the public, and coach our members to gain some expertise as citizen reviewers, so they can reliably rate the news in a scaleable manner, based on core principles of journalism (e.g. fairness, factual evidence, sourcing, context, etc.).
This slide is part of our NewsTrust PowerPoint presentation. To preview some of our other slides and find out more about NewsTrust, check our NewsTrust Slides (PDF) (or download our PowerPoint)
In coming Sundays, we will feature on this blog more charts and diagrams about some of the solutions we aim to provide with our non-profit service.
As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts about our community initiative, and encourage you to add your two cents in the comments below.
Please note that this Venn diagram is not based on verifiable quantitative data. It is intended as thinking tool, to visualize perceived differences between various news evaluation methods.
That's a quite interesting venn diagram. What a great way to compare your company versus the other options out there, very creative.
MattG
http://www.graphic.org/venbas.html
Posted by: MattG | March 19, 2008 at 11:26 AM