What do you want from the news?

Above all clarity. Facts and opinion clearly differentiated so that people can understand what the facts are, and then opinions can be formed compared and all of that.

I personally would really love to see the whole two sides to every story thing abolished. It's not productive, it's not even real.

Finally, and this will run against AD dollars of course, but I would love to see news focused right on the interests of everyday Americans, and presented from a labor, populist point of view. We basically don't do that in the US and there's a huge demand for it, and I would argue a need for it, given the outcome of media consolidation today.

I think doing those things will require a viewer supported and or subscription model such that it can be independent and actually present news in a way that serves the original purpose which is a check and balance against powerful interests.

In The Tin Men by Michael Frayn (1965) their attempts to computerise the news include ranking disasters by number killed divided by distance away. This is pretty much how the news works (though you might include colour of skin).

There seems to be still an idea that news should be presented in newspaper form. That is, there are "important" stories which warrant pushing to the top. If you want to know what stories are important, I think the trick will be to allow each subscriber to feed that back. Not by algorithms ( please!) but in some way which no other organisation has managed to get right. Over to you.

I think something like Wikipedia's current events portal [0] is a great way to take in news. I think it tries to give a sort of impartial global overview rather than focusing on a subset of stories, ideologies etc., with a minimal amount of sensationalism. Everyone comes with their own bias so I'm sure this could always be improved upon, but I think the approach is great.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Remove the money completely.

I don't care how - my parents were both journalists but it's a dead industry.

Australia's ABC News 24 is the closest I've found to what I want. No ads, no advertorials, ever.

Nothing about "celebrities" please. I really don't care what one of the Kardashians is doing, or what Ben Affleck thinks of XYZ current event.

> How much do you value editorial curation? (from 1 to 5)

Can you translate that into concrete language I (not a journalist) understand? Is it selecting or rearranging or both or..?

> When reading/watching/listening to news, how much do you want a reporter to provide their own opinion or analysis?

I think inevitably reporters do this. "How much do I want them to" makes no sense to me.

> What topics do you follow daily? / Do you follow the news?

I did every day until one day ~15 years ago I didn't, at all.

I didn't bother finishing the survey, it didn't seem like any of the questions + my answers had value.

Ddingus wrote on this page "Above all clarity. Facts and opinion clearly differentiated so that people can understand what the facts are, and then opinions can be formed compared and all of that." I think in reality, there is a spectrum, with facts on one end, opinion on the other, and most of reality somewhere in between. It's impossible to separate the fact-part from the opinion-part for most things, nor does that makes much sense even talking as if there are two different parts. Good luck!

For topics france24.com seem reasonable for me. I’m interested mostly international topics.

Clear title and short description no bias listed vertical I prefer.

Wish there is (like reader view) a browser built-in for view facts, opinions, what others are saying —- as researched expressed by the author of each article.

I want positive, individual focused, human interest stories that avoid: ideology, politics, and hot button topics. I want eye-bleach for my soul.

Groups of x identity stand up for themselves against cops in city Y, several are injured. Or individual of group x is discriminated against? Country Z is murdering people. No thank you.

This company in rural Idaho matches stray dogs with ex convicts, here's one of their stories from ten years ago and a check-in now. This library in upstate New York saved its micro-film from a flooded basement and is now putting it online. Hell yes.

Drop the "If it bleeds it leads." If it bleeds that makes me sad, stop focusing on bleeding things.

The news is mostly pointless non-actionable articles that essentially boil down to entertainment. That needs to change, journalists need to think about their audience and what they need and what actions they could take etc.

Take for example a human interest story about some guy converting his car to electric. Minimal mention of how he did it and no further resources for people who want to do the same. The article could have been reduced to just the headline and it would have been equally useful for its intended audience.

Nothing.

There is Stop Reading the News by Rolf Dobelli [1]

[1] https://www.dobelli.com/en/books/

I don’t want to take a survey, but I’d say this.

The biggest problem with the media is probably that technology has changed the business model of the news into a fear/outrage-porn machine. Once the algorithms find an angle that’s catchy and gets clicks and shares and views, there’s no stopping many normal folks from adopting that as their new sole reality without much critical pushback or questioning.

We went from Omicron panic to Putin outrage basically overnight because a new scary story gets more attention. Many people went from masks and vaccines as the central part of their identity to Zalensky and Ukraine without even blinking.

If anything causes WWIII, it’s going to be the media’s business model making people crazy with endless outrage clickbait and spurring politicians to do something stupid.

Fix the information asymmetry in politics. It is significantly harder to find media coverage that contradicts the dominant narrative. Note that this does not mean considering conspiracy or obviously nonsense content - it means covering alternative PLAUSIBLE explanations of events. That distinction seems to be lost.

Also, cite your sources for everything. EVERYTHING.

Information that is mathematically complete. I do not like when they choose to present numbers with the intent of convincing you of their point of view. E.g. the number of oil wells in city xyzzy has gone up 100%. (it went from one to two, but that is because the first is being replaced by the second one).

I think I want a list of all humans on earth and a history of their opinions on everything, stack ranked per subject by a democratic/PageRank rating of their expertise in that subject. Then I want an interface for filtering subjects as well as seeing rankings after filtering voters.

Something like Teletext news on Europe:

- Short description on the body of the article/new

- Almost no bias

I do not trust journalism nowadays nor do I think its current form achieves its goals which is fundamentally to inform and educate people. But I can't really fully blame you. Big Tech has grabbed all the eye balls and left you to fend for left overs. I believe that journalism really needs to reform itself. It needs to be more data-based and (much, much) less opinion-based. I don't know, maybe journalism needs to hybridize itself in a sort of wikipedia style medium with data, graphs, etc to enrich it.

Here are some suggestions (in no particular order):

1. Stop clickbaiting.

2. Avoid using ambiguous expressions such as sources say or sources familiar with the matter say or some other variant; I fully understand when the subject matter requires you to protect them - and I'm not fundamentally opposed to it - I am, however, opposed to the use of such expressions to distort facts and help build and maintain a certain narrative;

3. I want statistics. I want data. From different study groups with clear methodologies and origin(s) of funding. Most people will get this wrong because this is yet another area where people can distort facts as well;

(Maybe every N years publish something about statistics and how to interpret such studies to help new generations understand data. I don't know.)

4. I cannot stress this enough: take your time to investigate. If you can't back up your claims: do NOT publish. I mean it. You are only going to hurt your credibility and journalism in general;

5. If you are interviewing someone in loco, please, PLEASE, let. them. speak. stop cutting them off mid sentence;

6. Everyone makes mistakes but every time I see retractions it means the journalist in question didn't do their job properly. Or when a considerable amount of people/whatever deny a journalist's claims that can make me not trust their work either;

7. I want to learn technical details about what you're talking about too. Backlink to an older article about some sort of comprehensive explanation about that subject. Do not repeat yourself in newer articles;

For example, sometimes I read about quantum mechanics and every single time the journalist thinks it's a good idea to rehash the same old classical bits can only be 1 or 0, while quantum bits can be 1 and 0 at the same time phrase.

8. Stop publishing opinions, unless it is data-based. I want facts and data. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

9. Find a balance between negative and positive news. Being flooded with bad news all the time is not healthy for anyone's mental health, including journalists'.

10. And again, really, stop clickbaiting. Personally, I'm sick and tired of clickbait. This is probably one of the things that most contributes to my distrust of journalism.

Thanks for reading and good luck in your endeavour.

I want the ability to filter aggregated news. News.google aggregates highly biased and paywalled news in my region, I haven’t yet figured out how to filter irrelevant news like recaps on popular reality tv shows.

I also hate whatever that tech is that wraps the real page in their bloatware.

But most of all, I want to disable auto play videos.