[etep]

I have a theory that news occurs with a far lower frequency than people think, far lower than even when people try to account for their knowledge of the 24 hr. news cycle. In my theory, most of what counts for news, is either a story update (737 Max stories), or not news (say Trump "news").

My hypothetical news organization would strive to identify the unifying element of a given news item, and then keep one article about them. The article would include the following elements: a summary, a timeline, a fact set, and a commentary or critique. All subsections would be allowed to evolve, but the "story" would be one thing.

I've considered trying to self fund this somehow, but I've never convinced myself that it would really get traction.

[asteli]

Have you seen Wikipedia's current events portal? [1] It's pretty much what you describe there, sans critique (level 1, factual reporting).

In trying to escape the aggregators and filter bubbles, I have blocked all news sources on my phone (including HN!) save for Wikipedia. Since the stories are only high-priority and slowly evolving, I spend a lot less time on reading news, and am happier for it.

[1]: (For convenience) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

[etep]

Wasn't aware of it, will try it - thank you!

[max76]

I'd pay a approximately $10 monthly fee for this if it was minimally biased and had wide coverage of all news stories. I'm unsure if enough people would to become profitable, but some market exists.

For some long running stories that I only tune into occasionally, such as the Muller Investigation, I do not have enough context to fully understand the newest headlines. The only place where full comprehensive coverage will be in one place is in a book, and while I often buy books of that genera it will not be released until after the topic is concluded. This seems to be a one-stop-shop for everything about a news topic.

I think you'll have more success if you find a niche to start with. Maybe US National Politics & Economics, which covers your two examples. Finding your zone and sticking to it can separate you from the mainstream news which follows hype much better than a startup organization can.

I think this type of project is a great candidate for Crowd Funding. Crowd Funding can give positive reinforcement for a product/market fit and to help attract journalism talent.

[felixyz]

I would pay for something that let me keep up with actual news, with a time lag that allowed me to get a more stable picture after the first flurry of opinions and overselling had exhausted most of its energy.

[jimbokun]

"I have a theory that news occurs with a far lower frequency than people think, far lower than even when people try to account for their knowledge of the 24 hr. news cycle."

I gave up Reddit for Lent, and I've been shocked how little news actually happens in a day. I compulsively check Apple News (I know, baby steps), but without all of the Reddit commentary, wise cracks, trolling, and mutually reinforcing outrage, it all just seems very repetitive.

"Yep, Barr still hasn't released the Mueller report."

"No, the House still doesn't have Trump's tax returns."

"Candidate X is too progressive/too moderate/too male/too old/too young to be the Democratic nominee, even though it's still almost a year before any Democrats can vote on them."

"Still no trade agreement with China."

"Trump makes hyperbolic claims about an action he might take, but doesn't actually take any action."

That seems to be the daily news summary every day for the past few weeks.