> ..., held to objective professional and ethical standards laid out by journalist organizations?
In other words you are looking for journalists who are good at winning prizes from their peers. But this risks becoming a self-contained system where journalists are "reputable" because they parrot what other "reputable" journalists think.
If IronWolve pays for journalism from sites that strike him as being thorough and trustworthy, then IronWolve's own judgement is as (small) exogenous contribution to the system.
Of course it is also possible that IronWolve is a fool who pays for foolish journalism. But if so, then that's his problem.
>In other words you are looking for journalists who are good at winning prizes from their peers. But this risks becoming a self-contained system where journalists are "reputable" because, they parrot what other "reputable" journalists think.
I think you're missing the difference between journalism and editorialism. The latter has become our standard of "news" nowadays. A quick glance at the top alt-media sites shows literally nothing but unsourced, opinion driven fear mongering and click bait. It's not about winning awards or thinking "correctly", it's about operating within the bounds of good faith arguments, and adherence to ethical standards agreed upon by society at large. You can enjoy all the political opinions you wish, but don't confuse them with fact based news reporting.
In other words you are looking for journalists who are good at winning prizes from their peers. But this risks becoming a self-contained system where journalists are "reputable" because they parrot what other "reputable" journalists think.
If IronWolve pays for journalism from sites that strike him as being thorough and trustworthy, then IronWolve's own judgement is as (small) exogenous contribution to the system.
Of course it is also possible that IronWolve is a fool who pays for foolish journalism. But if so, then that's his problem.