[Disclosure: I am executive director of NewsTrust, which is the subject of this article] This blog post points to an announcement by the Sunlight Foundation about its recent grant to NewsTrust. It is fair, accurate and provides useful context, judging from responses we've received so far.

I'm sure some of what ends up on NewsTrust indicates the bias of the host who posted it. But the fact that somebody found a story interesting enough to post it says something in itself. I also believe anybody who reads the breadth of sources I see on NewsTrust is better informed than most people I know. I've also read some reviews that clearly reflect some deep knowledge on the topics--it's pretty easy to tell.

Interesting news regarding NewsTrust. It would be interesting to have the ratings weighted by a measure of how well informed the raters are.

Is there any objective way to rate the raters, other than "I like what s/he wrote/I hate what s/he wrote"?

Brief, very brief mention of a $10K grant to News Trust from the Sunlight foundation. As a News Trust fan, this is the absolute top news of the day, a must read. Trust me on this... :-)

This story doesn't really say very much, so it's difficult to consider it good journalism, even though it provides publicity for NewsTrust. It also seems to me that NewsTrust has its share of people who use the review process to give their opinions of what the source(s) of the story should have said or whether it conforms to their policitical beliefs, often using very loaded terminology, rather than commenting on the quality of the story itself.