#1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money)
#2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on.
#3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.
Totally on board with #1. An indirect fund from donations is a good way to divorce fundraising from behavior (click-bait won't attract many charitable donations). In fact, I'm beginning to think non-profits are a good way to fund social network services while avoiding exploitative advertising and rampant data collection.
#2 isn't too bad, but how about only listing information related to the content? I don't care about the author's political leaning for an article on good travel destinations. I might care about which countries they or their family have lived in (e.g., a South Korean immigrant comparing trips to South Korea and Japan).
For #3, it should be an alternate position, not opposite. "Showing both sides" is how we've perpetuated climate denial. There is much debate to be had on the topic, but showing the "opposite view" too often leads to cranks being given air time.
Seems like #2 would have the opposite effect by prioritizing the author's political leanings rather than the issues.
Facts aren't actually Democratic or Republican, and there's not a single consensus opinion for each party. But slap a party or ideological label on an article and it will appear to indicate the article is aligned with that bias label (even if it isn't). And people will conflate the contents of the article with the appropriate side even more than they already do.
What might be more successful would be to include a neutral fact check-style notice like "This article presents the majority Republican opinion on ___" or "This article uses widely-disputed claims to justify a fringe Democratic position". That would provide more context to the actual content of the article and how to interpret it.
#1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money)
#2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on.
#3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.