No, you’re applying a specific meaning to an inherently nebulous term, debullshitification.
And honestly, I immediately knew what that meant when I read it. My preferred news source, which isn’t horrendously partisan, still has…exactly what I’d call bullshit. If that’s removed, I’ll get more bang for my buck in reading it, and that both provides immense value, and something that I’d call “debullshitification”, whilst working purely from the articles provided.
Since you mentioned nebulous, this is the Oxford definition:
> verb: bullshit; 3rd person present: bullshits; past tense: bullshitted; past participle: bullshitted; gerund or present participle: bullshitting
> talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.
It’s reasonable to interpret debullshitification as removing bias (i.e. what is misleading or deceptive in the news article) in this context rather than the “fluff” listed.
As I stated in the comment you replied to, GP has a different definition and I agreed removing fluff definitely has value.
And honestly, I immediately knew what that meant when I read it. My preferred news source, which isn’t horrendously partisan, still has…exactly what I’d call bullshit. If that’s removed, I’ll get more bang for my buck in reading it, and that both provides immense value, and something that I’d call “debullshitification”, whilst working purely from the articles provided.