[BNM] [OT] just the facts

[richard willis]

yes but it's not really what i wrote about initially, which was an ability
to contrast and compare many types of pure news, seeing the
israeli/hizbollah conflict in contrast to, say, malarial infection rates
in thailand. i was imagining if you give 'everyone' (a la wikipedia)
access to 'the facts'* (and not just war or refugee or economic etc. etc.
facts but ALL NEWS, simpson's "what, not why or how" on subjects as
diverse as war and sport) you will get informed comment because:

a. the information (and nothing else) is there; and
b. 'everyone' can comment on it

ergo: informed comment. and yes opinionated but diverse and relatively (i
stress that) free from suspicions about motivation (political bent,
economic advantage, etc). and giving for surprising contrasts. we might
expect the guardian to contrast dubya bush's opinion against the conflict
but eme from cameroon would be able to tell us how it looked from there or
yuang from szechuan province would tell us how the israeli push into
lebanon has similarities with the chinese single-child policy [perhaps,
just naively  ;)  imagining possibilities] without having to hack around
blogs/google all the blasted day long.

* i appreciate that 'facts' are 'hard' to come by but... well, someone
might have built something approximating this.

i dunno. just thought i'd ask. maybe i'll just stick with the argus!  :)

r.



>
> So you didn't consider the UN High Commissioner for Refugees?
>
> http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home
>