I think it's supposed to work like Wikipedia with sourcing or metacritic with reviews. If journalists or news organizations routinely report false or heavily biased information, they should be rated negatively for it. 

So you'll need a team of a bunch of moderators, similar to wikipedia, to decide what is fair criticism and what's not. Seems like you'll just shift (some) of the potential abuse away from the media themselves, and over to this organisation deciding what is a reputabe outlet and what isn't. I hardly see how that's a positive - you'll centralize power over to one organization, and the more you centralize power, the easier it falls into the wrong hands.

There's a ratingsystem for everything except one for the media and if its a loose ratingsystem like metacritic is then i think there will be more positives than negatives.

Everything can fall in the wrong hands but that does not mean it cannot exist,like the media itself exists .And yes in on other ratingsites the numbers are pretty spot on,like metacritic the awful games get awful ratings.And if this moves journalists in being more honest from the start and im sure they will do that if the particular site gets popular then its allready a big win for us, the consumers .

Everything can fall in the wrong hands but that does not mean it cannot exist,like the media itself exists .And yes in on other ratingsites the numbers are pretty spot on,like metacritic the awful games get awful ratings.And if this moves journalists in being more honest from the start and im sure they will do that if the particular site gets popular then its allready a big win for us, the consumers .

Rating systems for things like movies and games is purely subjective, so it kinda works (though plenty of those don't work well either).  Ratings for whether media is accurate and honest is not subjective, people suffer massively from confirmation bias when it comes to media so what you would get is not a rating system for their quality or accuracy, but one for their popularity where their views align which is exactly what you don't want.

Most people do not mind politics when reading articles heck most people dont want to care or know a thing about politics themselves, offcourse there will be people with a bias but really its a small percentage .

And movies and games can suffer from the same like you see with Star Wars.

confirmation bias is NOT really small, the majority of people suffer from it, most unknowingly. People generally read content they agree with. This is a well understood phenomenon, people that agree with something are generally not capable of objectively evaluating it. Yes only a small percentage might be intentionally screwing with the ratings, they are not the problem, the problem is the majority that will be unknowingly screwing with it due to confirmation bias.

have a read, not the best article, but it does explain some of the problems quite well. https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/may/13/internet-confirmation-bias

I will give it a read, it looks like to be alot of guessing and opinions  and mostly i rather read scientific articles about this.

Thanks for sharing , you will get a pm about what i think of it in the next days.

There's a ratingsystem for everything except one for the media and if its a loose ratingsystem like metacritic is then i think there will be more positives than negatives.

Everything can fall in the wrong hands but that does not mean it cannot exist,like the media itself exists .And yes in on other ratingsites the numbers are pretty spot on,like metacritic the awful games get awful ratings.And if this moves journalists in being more honest from the start and im sure they will do that if the particular site gets popular then its allready a big win for us, the consumers .