Honestly, it seems to fail a lot on topics where there is a strong bias in the legacy media. There is also no "deduplication" of similar topics and related events.

I'd suggest a very different approach, expanding on the methodology of sites like "Here is the evidence" and "Ground Truth":

1. User asks question

2. If there are multiple possible matches, show them to the user and ask him to pick one, or, if not yet available or the matches are insufficient, ask the user to create a new request for clarification (including gathering some of the information he might already know, like involved people, approximate location, approximate time)

3. Once a specific event has been identified, show the user a summary of the event, a likely evaluation of his statement/question, a summary of all distinct positions on this topic and a list of the evidence gathered "here is the evidence"-style (but archived links..., and including a confidence rating)

4. If no good information is available yet, give the user an option to be notified via email or app or whatever when that changes

.

Upon a new request for clarification of an event being made (and this request not being merged with an already eisting topic):

1. Create a new entry, which does not yet make any judgement

2. Start looking up the event online, gathering neutral, relevant and easily available information like: Publicly known people present, relevant public locations (e.g. hospital victims were brought to in case of accident, location of event, involved agencies, nearby points of interest, nearby events), time, weather (helicopter crash during fog? Protest has low attendence during cold temperatures?), timeline leading up to the event (e.g. Presidential schedule, event happening after people leaving major sports event?, previous treaties), relevant laws and regulations, ..., basically everything major reports about the event think of as relevant and some basic other information (e.g. like the weather)

3. Update the entry with the information and ask people seeing it to gather additional evidence, maybe even provide commentary if applicable.

4. Notify relevant volunteers to gather additional evidence (ranked by living in the area, speaking the language, have specified this topic as an interest of theirs, have claimed that they have relevant abilities (e.g. access to sattelite images, participate in certain networks, ...), some randomly selected, ...). Maybe to avoid spamming anyone, default to sending a weekly list.

5. Depending on ressources and interest, keep gathering evidence on your own periodically

6. Gather evidence for the evidence. Plausible? Additional angles? Picked up by officials or involved people? People contesting it?

7. Give people the tools to contest, rate or ammend evidence. Through 6 and 7 eventually build a whole tree / graph of evidence and commentary.

8. Analyze the evidence where possible and relevant. Rate how significant it is, how controversial, how relevant (to legal proceedings, other evidence, logical conclusions) and how accurate (includes a spin? outright faked?)

9. Reduce the evidence trees down to a summary of the primary evidence. Summarize all the provided commentary, articles, etc. for each evidence into multiple distinct opinions.

10. Summarize all the primary evidence summaries and summarize all the evidence opinions and commentary on the main topic into distinct view points on this topic.

11. Update the entry with this information. Make a judgement.

12. Notify all those interested in the topic.

13. Periodically reevaluate if new updates / evidence becomes available. Periodically update those interested on major changes (or even minor if requested by those who are interested)