If you don't name what you want people to get instead, how could this even be true?
Mother jones has great reporting in general -- they're not an outfit that is a corporate ad extension.
Mother jones has great reporting in general -- they're not an outfit that is a corporate ad extension.
I'm sorry but are you kidding? Upon visiting this page I was presented with this ad that had no dismiss button: http://prntscr.com/c5bb9h
If you were a raging liberal, then I suppose you'd consider Mother Jones and its insistence on giving your email to the "Progressive Turnout Project" before reading their content to be "great reporting" (by the way, Mother Jones was paid for this - does that not qualify as a "corporate ad extension"?). But personally, I can't stand political propaganda sites that masquerade as journalism, and I especially can't stand any site that requires me to give my email to third parties before I can read their content. That's a nonstarter.
We have a huge problem where you really can't trust anything you hear or see; especially news. However, what's the solution? If I want to be up to date on world politics who do I trust? How do I know I can trust them? What about a new product? The manufacturer says it's healthy; an "article"says its not. Who do I trust? Is the article genuine or paid off by a competitor to boost their own sales? Do I have to do my own research and studies to find out the truth? That's hardly scalable.
It would be pretty interesting to have something like HN, perhaps a bit broader in topic selections, where the analysis was captured in a more structured manner and published for other services to reuse in various ways to aid the reader.