[acidburnNSA]

I have been trying to imagine a kind of template for news commentary that could attempt to award productive discourse. I don't think there's an easy way around it being gamed but it's fun to think about. Something like:

* Here are several basic facts

* Here is our best interpretation of the facts given the context.

* here are interpretations that the other side(s) are putting forth, stated in their strongest form such that they would agree with it as stated

* here is our analysis of why those other interpretations are not as strong as our own.

You could maybe rank or sort these based on how many 'other siders' agree with (upvote) their presentation of the other side mixed with how much you agree with the basis of their analysis to choose your favorite sources of commentary.

[laurent92]

I remember reading a Singapore newspaper and thinking it was the epitome of a one-sided one-party dictatorsh… democracy. After several articles, I noticed what was wrong with it.

Every article was made of the 4 exact parts you quoted, but used in bad faith. Especially “the opposing side, in their strongest argument” all relies on subjective interpretation. Words can always be twisted.

[acidburnNSA]

that why I want the oppositions approval/upvote of the description of their position to be a key part of this.