Posts Tagged ‘


Reviewing a review on a review

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Carlos Saucedo (the fellow on the video above) wrote a review on ,  and while doing so, he referred to me as a “representative from”, relying on my own post reviewing that website. And though he was innacurate, i think he raises a few good questions.

But first of all, let me clarify a thing or two: i’m not a “representative from”. The text Carlos refers to, is my own review for, a project created by Paul Bradshaw. I don’t know where Carlos Saucedo got the idea i was representing NewsTrust, since we can read at the top of the post “Review: – Another JE review“. But it probably slipped his attention.

But what Carlos does well is to question the principles of websites like and and the ethics of journalism. His point is: why should some website proclaim that it has the best unbiased juornalism, if things should already be that way? That was the question i did when i reviewed the website. My findings? Those projects rely in the power of the crowd to pick the best articles out of the news cloud, which may not be always right, but it’s far more democratic than leaving that choice to a small bunch of people. Added to the crowd factor, i verified that the “people in charge of NewsTrust are experienced, reputable professionals, which gives extra credibility to the project.” They have journalism backgrounds, and a past of civic engagement. NewsTrust is the marriage between those two sides, to provide the best news chosen by the people, for the people. Do i think it’s an interesting idea? Yes i do. Do i believe it’s perfect? Not at all, but it’s good, and it is also a good example of how things work now in news distribution: we no longer rely in just one brand, but we also follow the recommendations of others, we go to one website to find views and news from different sources. The fragments all glued together by ourselves and the crowd, to build our own news reality, instead of the monolithic model that ran for decades.

He also questions ethics: “Has the field of journalsim changed so much that no one can be trusted anymore?  I guess we are all to assume that journalism and ethics in the same sentence is an oxymoron.” He’s being naive, of course. Or he never saw Fox or any other TV station, radio, newspaper, website pursuing a biased perspective. No, that wouldn’t happen in the United States. Journalism is powerful, because it shapes people’s perception of reality, and that is what rules people’s actions, or inertia, for that matter. Journalism is not always ethical. I’m sorry to say that out loud because it can break a few hearts, but that’s the truth. Most journalists try to do things right  though (i hope not to be the naive one now). And it has never been so powerful, because we can know in seconds about something that happened across the world, and there has never been such a great load of information. Should we leave the choice of the important news to the crowd? Well, what makes news is something that will affect the largest number of people. If the crowd doesn’t know what is important for them, who will? And if the crowd can choose from the noise, why won’t they? Maybe there aren’t many people with the proper training to be journalists. But even the “respected news organizations that have prefessional experience in journalism” must be questioned by the amateurs, because they are the destination, but no longer the end of the line of the news cycle, because now the amateurs can ask, comment, give their input back.

Unlike Carlos, I have journalistic experience. Not as much as i wanted to, but enough to recognize that this is all grey area. Carlos admits: “I have no professional or student experience in journalism whatsoever!”. And he is not the paradigm of impartiality: “As the ardent activist I was on campus, I plan to continue my enthusiasm for change into the field of journalism.  The lack of diversity in American newsrooms is a call for drastic change.” So he has his own agenda. And for what i’ve seen, Carlos has little knowledge of how things work nowadays. But now i’m just being biased.

I admire enthusiastic young journalists who believe that this job is fitted to induce a change for better in the world. Carlos is one of those, and i am too, apart from the fact i’m not as young as he is. The role of journalism is to present facts so that people can exercise their rights: the right to vote in their favorite candidate, the right to demonstrate against or for public decisions, the right to be aloof.

What i liked about the post Carlos wrote is that he is willing to pose the questions that bother him, and makes them public for the common good: “Are we so idle nowadays that we need a site to tell us what is bias and what isn’t in news?” Well, Carlos, sometimes we do, but i like the  question, because it’s thought-provocative . I wish the best for him, and i hope he keeps enthusiastic about journalism and the power it has to improve things, but i’ll leave one piece of advice: get the facts straight before publishing them, or you’ll be paying journalism a poor effort.

Alexandre Gamela, who appears to be a representative from, wrote in a blog that the online site provides “quality news feeds, news literacy tools and a trust network to help citizens make informed decisions about democracy.”
Well, isn’t that what the press is for?  Has the field of journalsim changed so much that no one can be trusted anymore?  I guess we are all to assume that journalism and ethics in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Are we so idle nowadays that we need a site to tell us what is bias and what isn’t in news?
You would think that respected news organizations that have prefessional experience in journalism, would have the capacity to produce unbiased, high-quality reporting and not be questioned by amateurs.




Mais uma crítica JE | Another JE review

Rating: ★★★★☆


By Alexandre Gamela


What do they say it is? helps people find good journalism online.

Our non-profit, non-partisan project provides quality news feeds, news literacy tools and a trust network to help citizens make informed decisions about democracy.

The free website features daily feeds of quality news and opinions, which are carefully rated by our members, using our unique review tools. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. NewsTrust reviewers evaluate each article against core journalistic principles such as fairness, evidence, sourcing and context.”

What do I say it is?

It is a social news website. NewsTrust gathers news feeds that are evaluated and ranked by its users, to establish the credibility of those sources. It features blogs, magazines, tvs, radios, all of them scrutinized by regular readers, that assess if Is this good journalism?”

A sort of Michelin guide for news media.

What’s great about it?

Users get the chance to review their news sources, and compare their quality. They input their analysis through a very complete form: it includes rating parameters like trust, fairness, sources and context; there’s also a space to cross reference the news stories with other sources, and users can even leave their suggestions to improve articles, as long they support their ideas with facts.

One of their goals is to fight civic apathy, and making people question what they are being fed to is a good way to do that. The moral principles of NewsTrust are high, and they present themselves as a part of the solution for resolving media/users trust issues.

People in charge of NewsTrust are experienced, reputable professionals, which gives extra credibility to the project.

What could be better?

Not much, but it’s very USA oriented, and that may not be even a downside. It’s still a beta version, though bugs were not found. It all seems transparent and rather simple, really.

How is it going to make money?

In their own words: “Founded in 2005 and based in Mill Valley, California, NewsTrust is a non-profit, non-partisan project funded through grants and private donations and sponsored by The Global Center, an educational foundation based in Manhattan. So far, we have received support from foundations such as the Sunshine Foundation, Ayrshire, Mitch Kapor and Tides Foundations, as well as private donors such as Craig Newmark (Craigslist) and Doug Carlston (Public Radio International). We’re also discussing multi-year funding with several major foundations – as well as partnerships with national news providers. Though we are nonprofit and initially funded through donations, we plan to run the venture as a sustainable business, and to generate revenue in the online market to support this project. Revenue streams include advertising, memberships, licensing and ecommerce.”

Should I pay it any attention?

NewsTrust is a solid project that works both ways: users challenge the quality of journalism being made, and news companies and journalists have a reference to improve and become more trustworthy. It asks both for better readers and better news.

I moved | Mudei-me


Sharks patrol these waters

  • 131.836 nadadores|swimmers
who's online

Add to Technorati Favorites

View my FriendFeed


Add to Technorati Favorites Creative Commons License

Naymz | LinkedIn

View Alex Gamela's profile on LinkedIn

View Alex Gamela's page at


Top Clicks

  • Nenhum


Ouçam o meu podcast AQUI | Listen to my podcast HERE |


Use Open Source



Setembro 2020