The only way this will be a game changer is if we the audience hold media accountable for its content. I feel like if that was in the cards, there is plenty of readily available evidence to bolster claims of poor quality.
Moreover, is not the first app of this nature. Take the human-powered Newstrust.net (now run by Poyter I believe), which has crafted quantitive measures of "journalistic quality." It was another "awesome" model - but it's not widely used. No tool can hold news organizations accountable when its readers do not.
[1]https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:trustedreviews.com+hu...
What is not ok is to trick the reader into believing that a piece of information has received adequate treatment, when it really hasn't. There's an implicit contract of trust between the newspaper and the reader, and if that app does what it advertises, it will make the contract harder to breach.
In particular:
| The reality is, critical readers should read analytic
| posts and the rest of Zero Hedge* with the blanket
| assumption that the author is totally "conflicted."
| (Phrased more logically, that the author stands to
| benefit from being right--imagine that).