From the get-go, we've already taken a dump on the possibility of authenticity-by-algorithm news site Newscred and its attempt to suss out what sources are trustworthy. But here's more evidence that the site isn't worth its tagline ("All the world's credible news, in one place"): Every source is being treated equally.

CONTINUED »

Did you ever Digg or Stumble or Twitter or Tumble across a juicy lead, only to have the unverified source come back to haunt you later on (whoops, Montauk Monster)? Now there is a news aggregator site that uses an algorithm to determine the credibility of user-submitted stories, which would (in theory) allow commentators to work as their own self-cleaning system of news truthiness; weeding out the more dubious stories by voting them with a low credibility rating. But can Newscred realistically run on a system of fair play?

CONTINUED »

Is "Media Credibility. Restored." an oxymoron, or a description of the impossible? One thing it is: the slogan for NewsCred, a new (currently invite-only) service that will tell you how credible a news source (even a blog!) is based on user reviews. [TC] As you might imagine, this type of come-on is rife with problems, such as: What makes a news source credible?; Does credibility refer to bias? inaccurate information? spelling errors?; etc. And also, who's kidding themselves that this won't just be an excuse for lefty liberals to bash Fox News and righty conservatives to bash the Times? [BM] Sounds like a worthwhile use of time, debate skills.