This is certainly a noble prospect, Denis. Responsible monitoring of media outlets ought to be undertaken by concerned citizens, not the .gov.

Here's something to consider, an immediate case study.

For many years, I read mostly certain conservative sites. Eventually, a year or so ago, I got tired of their predictable twisting of every contemporary issue, especially during this bizarre era of Trump.

I switched my reading habits to other sources.

But I'm not in the habit of cancelling email subscriptions, so I have still been receiving emails regularly from the former sites, but rarely reading them.

Just this evening, I decided to click on a headline from the Western Journal, a source that I had not viewed for a long while. The headline was: "Decision Desk HQ Calls Vital State For Trump."

This story was, literally, no news at all.

The story reported that "Decision Desk HQ", whoever, whatever that is, had declared that Trump has won North Carolina's 15 Electoral votes.

I live in North Carolina, so I was paying attention to that state's returns, all during the three-day period in which votes were being counted and reported by all networks, mainstream and partisan.

It had been obvious, from the earliest stages of vote compilations, that Trump was leading in North Carolina all along. There was never any question about which way this state would go, and supply 15 electoral votes for Trump.

But this trumpish "news" source was reporting that information as if it would make a difference in the outcome of the Presidential race.

This hyped-up "Breaking" story is flashed in the midst of Trump's mounting sorcery campaign to steal the election.

As to why this fully expected report would carry any significance on the real Electoral College vote count, I can only conclude that the Western Journal's readers are too ensconced in their own Trump/Fox bubble to understand that the North Carolina "breaking" was really no news at all, although it was being presented as such by a media in Donald Trump's pocket.