I have now read manufacturing consent and my questions have not changed. In fact, it is my opinion that the issues discussed in that book back up my questions.
1.3 acknowledges that it is more expensive to report if you don’t just take information from sources which are presumed credible and explains how the government currently takes advantage of this to provide their version of “credible” information to the media
1.2 Blatantly points out massive issues caused by using advertisers for revenue.
So if it costs more and one of your revenue streams works counter to your goal, how will you pay for it?
There are several instances in the book where a small fraction of informed people are unable to make a difference so you do need mainstream adoption of this practice. You need some mechanism to get from a few people being better informed to a large percentage of the population which means you have to overcome the biases that exist in the majority of the population. As manufacturing consent put it, “In the category of supportive factors, we find, first of all, elemental patriotism, the overwhelming wish to think well of ourselves, our institutions, and our leaders. We see ourselves as basically good and decent in personal life, so it must be that our institutions function in accordance with the same benevolent intent, an argument that is often persuasive even though it is a transparent non sequitur. The patriotic premise is reinforced by the belief that "we the people" rule, a central principle of the system of indoctrination from early childhood, but also one with little merit, as an analysis of the social and political system will quickly reveal. There are also real advantages in conformity beyond the re-wards and privilege that it yields.”
“But a critical analysis of American institutions, the way they function domestically and their international operations, must meet far higher standards; in fact, standards are often imposed that can barely be met in the natural sciences. One has to work hard, to produce evidence that is credible, to construct serious arguments, to present extensive documentation-all tasks that are superfluous as long as one remains within the presuppositional framework of the doctrinal consensus.”
This is the level of bias you are up against. So I will ask again how does your solution address this?
If you cannot provide any idea of how your proposal even begins to overcome these issues, I will continue to think that it won't work.