I've been working on https://www.forth.news. We're a news feed for news; scroll/follow like social media, but all posts come from verified journalists who agree to an editorial policy. Would love to know your thoughts.
The amount of brain damage that site does to unwitting lazy journalists who think a teenage basement dweller clique of keyboard activists is the voice of a nation...
Curious about the monetization plan, if you’re comfortable sharing.
Right now its ads, as you may have noticed. We're looking to do more sponsorship deals, and then potentially explore a subscription model when we feel that we have enough to warrant it. (Though still keeping some free tier.)
The big thing for us, as former journalists, is to make sure we can get to a point where we can do a revshare back with the people doing the work -- the newsrooms/reporters.
For news matters that I have had direct personal knowledge about, I've often found that the coverage from the so-called "mainstream" Canadian news media has been quite bad.
The most accurate and relevant Canadian news reporting I've seen has been from anonymous or quasi-anonymous Reddit comments, Twitter tweets, YouTube videos, blog posts, and comments on "mainstream" articles (back when they tended to allow those), for example, rather than from anybody who might be called a "verified journalist".
Aggregating and selecting from the "mainstream" Canadian news media wouldn't provide any real value to me.
That said, every journalist on Forth agrees to follow our editorial policy (https://www.forth.news/docs/editorial) to ensure a standard of coverage.
And if anyone reading this is a reporter or newsroom leader, we'd love to talk: https://journalists.forth.news