Hi guys,

Sorry for joining the discussion a bit late. I am NewsCred's Community Manager and just wanted to say a quick thanks for the interesting questions and debate... and the great answers by Michael too!

There is really not much for me to add except for the fact that we are always striving to improve and refine our credibility ranking system. As such, we rely on (and greatly appreciate) user comments and feedback to help us grow. While our system is still far from perfect, it plays an important role in the debate on media credibility and has brought us one step closer to making media outlets, of all sizes, more accountable for the quality and accuracy of the news they produce.

We will soon be launching the next version of our website, which I'm sure you will all find very impressive. So keep your ears to the ground and come join our growing community of cred-busters! And please send us your thoughts and feedback! With your help, we can all take NewsCred to the next level.

Joe, Readers simply cast a vote for whether or not a story is credible. A story's credibility ranking is then based on those votes.

Simple question - Who establishes the credibility of a story at NewsCred and what are the established criteria?

Joe Troxler
Communications & Media Relations Consultant
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

I think that NewsCred or any critical analysis of any newspiece must first begin with defining its terms and its context. Why does it exist? Even if this means resorting to general well established caveats known to most. That's at least a start. Then, once that is commonly agreed upon, you establish more critical standards, not simply decency or fair play. And is this as true for a Canadian and/or American domestic story versus an international one? Political and social mores also play into what makes a story credible.

Joe Troxler
Communications and Media Relations Consultant
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Thanks, Anna. Of late it seems to really take a village.

To answer your question, you can call out errors, lack of citations, etc., on the site's comment section. However, the credibility ratings are simply based on a yes/no scale.

I think you mean, "conspiracy theorist in the cubicle next door." Does it allow you to substantiate "discredit" claims -- such as by pointing out errors, lack of citations, or imbalanced reporting? I could see value in that, but otherwise seems like just another way of "liking" or "unliking" something.