Cull it for me, but be specific: who has the best news coverage of this one thing 

Here's an idea for a smarter 21st century news aggregation site, because the quality and depth of reporting by any given news organization varies from story to story.

Somehow, through a combination of automation and human judgment, the site links to -- or outputs feeds or scrapings from -- news outlets especially tuned into particular top stories of the day, but different outlets for each story or issue.

As a reader, let's say I've skimmed the Washington Post and Yahoo News on the thwarted Fort Dix terrorist attack, but now I want news from sources especially into that story. Maybe it's the website of a big New Jersey newspaper or broadcast station, or a placeblog or a specialized site on homegrown terror. This new kind of culling site keeps track of who's covering the topic with a vengeance, and tells me all about it.

For ongoing stories, like the U.S. attorney firing scandal, you get all the Talking Points Memo posts about it, plus all the stories about it from a big paper, maybe it's the Post, maybe not, for that particular issue. Depends on whose reporter has fire in the belly about it or seems to have the closest sources.

For the story on selling the need to attack Iraq, it was the McClatchy (then Knight-Ridder) reporters who owned the story, but most of us didn't know about that until Bill Moyers told us years later.

Sometimes an issue erupts and the general news media comes into the picture at the 11th hour and can't have all the details that a narrow watchdog group knows, since it's been following the topic for months or years. Sometimes a trade association or professional group is the best source for the facts of an issue, and many of them publish magazines and newsletters online. Other times it's a lone blogger on a mission. Instead of relying only on a reporter to quote and possibly reinterpret or oversimplify facts from these sources, let them speak for themselves alongside the other reporting.

You could solicit input from users about best outlets, and use a recommendation system to help validate the nominations, and flag undisclosed biases. You could encourage the outlets themselves to pitch their worthiness and let users and human editors vet the self-nominations.

Things like this can be done now, so shouldn't it be done? Somebody somewhere must be working on it.