Ranking, not replacing
The tool orders your reading and shows its working. The editorial call stays yours, every signal behind a score is visible, and overruling the ranking takes one click.
Home About
Built for the half hour that decides the day
VidiScoop started as an internal tool for a group of news channels that kept losing mornings to the same problem: too many stories, no repeatable way to choose between them.
The problem we actually had
Running one news channel is a research job with a video attached. Running three is a research job you cannot finish. Every morning produced the same forty minutes: twenty tabs, three news apps, a trends page, and a decision made largely on instinct — then a full production day committed to it, right or wrong.
The expensive failures were never bad edits. They were good videos about stories that three larger channels had covered two hours earlier, or stories that turned out to rest on a single unverified source, or stories that were genuinely huge and completely irrelevant to the audience we had spent two years building.
What we tried first
Trend lists were the obvious answer and the wrong one. They rank attention across an entire country, which is a different question from “what is worth a video on this channel today”. Keyword tools were built for evergreen search, where you have weeks to accumulate signals — news gives you hours. General-purpose AI chat was good at writing and useless at knowing what had actually happened in the last day.
What was missing was narrower than any of them: read the last 24 hours, collapse the duplicates, and rank what remains against one specific channel.
What we built instead
Four layers of sources scanned in parallel and clustered so that twelve outlets reporting one event become one story with a coverage count of twelve. Five weighted signals producing a score you can argue with, because every signal is shown. Then the part that was quietly costing us just as much: packaging written while the story is fresh, not at 9pm after the edit ran long.
The whole design brief was one sentence — spend the time on the decision and the video, not on the search.
What it deliberately does not do
- It does not publish for you, or ask for permissions on your channel.
- It does not write your script. The description gives you a sourced spine; the video is yours.
- It does not decide. It ranks, shows its working, and makes disagreeing easy.
- It does not hide the AI behind credits. You bring a key and see the real cost.
Where it is going
The near-term work is about the parts of the loop that are still manual: richer scheduling, deeper competition data before you commit to a story, and better tools for teams handing packages between researcher, writer and editor. The direction has not changed since the first version — make the morning decision faster and better, and leave the judgement where it belongs.
How we build it
Six principles we keep checking against
Events over commentary
A news channel needs things that happened. Listicles, opinion pieces and speculation are demoted on purpose, even when they are the loudest thing in the feed.
Honest about uncertainty
Coverage counts and source lists are shown rather than hidden behind a single number, because “one outlet said this” and “eight outlets confirmed this” are different products.
Your keys, your models
You bring the AI provider and see the real cost. No opaque credit system, no lock-in, and your prompts go to an account you control.
One account, many channels
Most people who need this run more than one channel. Workspaces are separate by default rather than as a paid add-on to an assumption we got wrong.
Nothing you would not publish
Generated packaging is written to be accurate first and clickable second. Overclaiming lifts click-through and destroys the trust that keeps an audience returning.
Try it on your own beat
See whether the ranking matches your instincts.
That is the only test that matters. One channel, one scan, ten minutes.
No credit card required · Your first ranked scan takes about a minute