I NewsTrust.

I like that the aim of NewsTrust is very direct: helping people find good journalism online. With that, however, arises the question as to what good journalism entails. And an answer is provided, which is the main attraction to NewsTrust. Members of the community not only suggest stories, but also rate them in terms of “core journalistic principles such as fairness, evidence, sourcing and context.” The website does a great job in that the members weed out irrelevant stories by applying the principles used in the rating to determine its worth. The organization of the website makes it user-friendly: more than just highlighting the most significant stories, members also have the option to focus their news search in the specific categories.

At the same time, however, because NewsTrust relies heavily, if not entirely, on the participation of its users for significant news, there’s room for neglect in certain areas. I understand that breaking news can’t happen in every category every day, but I think the news articles posted can be updated more frequently. Moreover, I can't help but to ask who the primary members of the organization are: that is, who is suggesting and rating these stories, and why exactly should I trust their judgment? But as of now, I've only read comments from very intelligent people who not only take the news seriously, but are also concerned with the integrity of journalism.

In terms of aesthetics, the website could use more visual aspects of images or video. I find that I am essentially inundated with text upon first glance, and it’s not very eye-catching.

Lastly, and by no means is this a minor flaw, but the website in itself doesn’t always run very quickly. And with very little images, what exactly is loading that I have to wait for? Damn my impatience.

Peace. & chicken grease?