I think that this world needs a news source that builds a reputation investigating conspiracy in a neutral tone. For me, the problem with this article, which we find may have been spot on, is the approach and tone it takes. The emotional of the article plays into the hands of conspirators that it seeks to point out. For example: "The spectacle of this shattered destiny is suggestive of ancient tragedy. The Roman saying: "Arx tarpeia Capitoli proxima" comes to mind: the Tarpeian Rock from which a convicted person was hurled to his death was close to the Capitol, the symbol of power and greatness. Leaving aside any considerations of his innocence or guilt, the steamrolling of such a high-profile personality can only provoke anguish in the ordinary citizen. If someone like him is unable to defend himself, then how can we hope to succeed if we were to be accused like him?" This essay is making at least two arguments: 1) It smells like DSK was set up, and 2) We should be afraid of these powers that be. IMHO, if the first argument is made successfully, there is no need to make the second. I am imagining a source that lays out possible interpretations of events, and assigns verifiable facts to each interpretation. Or, possibly a Wikipedia of events. Wikivents. Wouldn't that be an interesting edit history?
The wikievents is a great idea, certainly worth a try! Simply having certain interesting historical facts -- such as RollsRoyce giving Soviet Union a functional jet engine for their MiGs just in time for dog fights with USAF over Korea -- available will require a re-evaluation for the thoughtful reader. I also fully agree we certainly do need more balanced news reporting. (There are those who would point to AlJazeera and PressTV. IMO, these are both phony opposition outlets. PressTV is practically produced in UK.) Wondering if a crowd-sourced news agency can be put together? (We can not rely on the handful of feeds produced by Reuters, AP, etc. That is one of the main problems.)
It’s an interesting thought. My feeling is that it is not only the source that is currently problematic, but the analysis. IMHO news analysis is the Achilles heel of traditional media. Although an entity can put together a large number of quality threads, they cannot compete with crowd-sourced analysis. For example, not long ago, you pointed out the Spanish Revolution here on Hubski. I had just happened to be in days before Istanbul and was wondering what some student signs that read ‘Spanish Revolution’ meant. We communicate, and I learn what the Spanish Revolution is, and you learn that it has touched Turkey. Anyone reading our conversation can learn both. -It’s multi-dimensional, unpredictable, and dynamic. IMHO, the perfect news source would provide a large cross-section of information with competing analyses. I am not saying that Hubski ought to be a news source. However, I would like it to be a platform for that type of unfettered exchange. I do like the notion of a Wikivents. Wikipedia has some rules that would exclude that type of coverage.
I know Gin dobre and dobre naat (however you spell it.)