[BNM] just the facts

[joe aliferis]

I like the idea, but it seems a little naive to imagine that people can 
extract facts from emotive subjects in such a way...

joe


richard willis wrote:

>last night i imagined a news site where there were no stories, no comment,
>just facts and a limited amount of explanatory text. for instance, let's
>take israel/hisbollah:
>
>i want just the unadulterated facts about the war AND its relationship to
>other current wars and other facts. so...
>
>say, a page showing a map of the world with ALL the global, known, current
>conflicts shown on it as clickable areas. select a 'war' to get more
>details about that particular conflict, but as much as possible, pure
>facts. so: length of war, number of dead/dying/wounded, size of military,
>buildings destroyed, land taken/lost, populations involved, GDP etc. etc.
>with text being limited to some short, purely objective terms such as
>given reason for the conflict (both sides), known allies, religion of
>combattants etc.
>
>then give options for users to compare facts that they choose to compare.
>for instance, the amount of people that died in belgian hospitals today
>cross-referenced against the amount of congolese soldiers lost in combat
>today and so on and so forth.
>
>no journalists on the site but perhaps wikis/blogs so that everyone can
>raise/comment on new/existing issues, allowing news 'stories' to be as
>diverse as your standard 'should israel call a ceasefire?' to the less
>widely reported 'more people die on roads in britain daily than ever did
>at chernobyl' and beyond.
>
>does anything like this exist? cos if it did it'd be no more
>bbc/sky/cbn/reuters for me, no way. if it did, maybe i could actually see
>'the news' for once as opposed to 'the filtered bias'.
>
>
>  
>