Robert Wright offer this idea to combat the decay of the so-called news media:
Other once mighty newspapers of record also lost much of their value early in the new millennium and in the process became politicized partisan shills once again. Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post is perhaps the clearest example but too many “news” articles read more like op-eds at most papers these days.
To once again enjoy a newspaper of record that publishes all the news in a “just the facts, ma’am” manner, another technological innovation will be necessary. A news outlet that posted a bond with a third party that would be forfeited if it insisted on publishing anything factually wrong, or crossed the line between journalism and punditry, could create the sort of trust that people once had in the New York Times and other papers of record, all of which essentially posted informal bonds backed by their reputations and expected future profitability.
Right now, journalists’ incentives are all wrong. Controversy and clickbait garner pageviews, which lead to revenue. The bonding mechanism would change that incentive because the ad revenue would be reduced, obliterated, or perhaps even reversed if gained through a deceptive story or misleading headline.
I have the same problem with this that I have with all other efforts to limit disinformation: Who gets to define it?
I suspect that Wright’s article is a thought experiment created to bring attention to a massive problem.