Sounds like a nice idea but isn't Google News already doing a decent job on this? It's going to be hard to beat the speed of Twitter or Google News in my opinion but I'll be curious to see where this goes.
Not really. Google doesn't summarize facts. It aggregates articles into clusters, which is useful, but it doesn't save us much time. Google also does a rather poor job of ranking the importance of stories, and often has old news for a long time and breaking news relatively late (or later than a motivated community, like Twitter, can have it).
Google News' strength is ranking, not summarizing facts from different sources so you can avoid reading all the top 5 or 20 articles about a story.
And, philosophically, do you HN folks really want to rely on the MSM to tell you what's important? And likes, shares and troll-ridden comments on news stories?
Or do you want a democratized way to decide, collectively, what news stories and facts are important.
Don't forget the NYT, etc. screwed up on no WMD's in Iraq.
I was at a small group dinner with Judith Miller, ex-NYT, who's nice but she messed up.