Vetting news sources 2.0

In the world I want to live in, news sources get qualified as legitimate in a far better way than they do now. My interest is NOT in silencing dissent, squelching debate or dominating a conversation. Rather it's to deepen insight, better empathize and value diversity for breaking up "one right answer". Here's the guiding premises for a different way to vet news sources:

• Some of us are tolerant of others with different viewpoints, compassionate about interests other than our own and empathetic with others' pain. Some of us are intolerant of others with different viewpoints, judgmental about interests other than our own and critical of others acting out their pain
• Those of us who are tolerant in general come across as intolerant toward those who lack compassion and empathy for others out of a concern for how that treatment could put those others in more pain, misfortune and deprivation. Those of us who are intolerant in general come across as tolerant toward those who are equally judgmental and critical (lacking compassion and empathy) out a concern for sticking together in a battle of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, disciplined vs. slouches or some other clear cut dichotomy.
• Those of us with compassion and empathy speak of different viewpoints, different sides of an issue and phases of development that change our minds. Those of us who are judgmental and critical speak of rationalizations to vindicate positional stances, attacks on others and one-sided viewpoints.
• Those with some understanding of others can foresee how things may work out for the better, resolve themselves through dialogue and come to shared objectives as a result. Those with strong convictions against others can foresee how things will get worse, vindicate paranoid predictions and come to a stalemate of irreconcilable differences before long.
• Those with optimistic forecasts can look forward to the future, work toward desirable outcomes and envision welcomed changes. Those with pessimistic forecasts dread the future, work on restoring previous conditions and envision the defeat of those who welcome perilous changes.
• Those who welcome changes can put aside fears, provide reassurances and comfort others' anxieties about transitions. Those who dread changes can play on people's fears, provide nightmare scenarios and raise everyone's anxiety level to the brink of panic.

Journalism 1.0 typically fails to draws these distinctions. The journalists report on paranoia as if it's a calm assessment of actual conditions. They legitimize a lack of empathy as a considerate point of view. They feed problems in the world by dismissing the effects of paying particular attention, framing the facts and self-fulfilling prophesies.

Journalism 2.0 could do the opposite and do a far better job of vetting news sources. The journalists can report on paranoia as paranoia, They can legitimize empathy for considering many points of view that then contrasts with a lack of empathy. They can dismantle the chronic problems in the world by relying on the effects of paying particular attention, framing the facts and self-fulfilling prophesies.