Supposedly this is a bold new format of journalism that will win back trust and cater to our foreshortened attention spans. It regularly wins praise on this site and elsewhere, but I find it shallow.
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
(Emphasis mine)
What are we to make of the text before the comma? It straightforwardly implies that the media is, and has been, fully reliable. Is this a "bare fact" or is it opinion?
> Axios has a stated mission to "help restore trust in fact-based news.
And a link onward to a piece with the title Our promises to you: Axios Bill of Rights:
https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d...
First, the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights is not a list of promises; rather a list of demands that the central authority limit impositions of its power upon regional authorities and free citizens. Axios tries to slip into the more respected clothing that is the work of others -- but it does not fit.
Worse follows. As prolog to the Axios "Rights" we find this:
>Why it matters: Nothing matters more than winning the war for truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21...
What is or could be a "war for truth"? When has gaining truth ever been the aim of war? When relations have degenerated to a state of warfare, hasn't truth always suffered violence rather than been "won"?
"start of a novel"