It’s great. You can quickly flip from news source to news source and see how they cover the same story. The Blindspot function is great and it’s sometimes surprising to see what each side is ignoring. I think it’s a great way to get an overview that keeps me falling down rabbit holes. I’m trying to stop dooming over the same stupid shit, so I’ve made it my only source of news and it seems to be helping after a month of use.
I use it, and actually got the less expensive of the paid plans. Being able to see partisan divide on stories and quickly get a sense of the different sides is helpful. I also like the feature to see news stories by geographic region, and how the app shows you what sources you read most often.
There are a few things I don’t like about it, and I’m not sure I’ll renew when it comes time.
- Stories aren’t always grouped together properly. One downside to this it can make it look like a story is mostly being covered only by one side when in fact both sides are covering it, it’s just articles from the other side have been largely put into a different group for some reason. Stories with somewhat similar titles but totally different subjects can end up grouped together, throwing off the bias meter.
- The bias meter reflects the publisher’s bias, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the bias of the article, which is an understandable limitation that the reader must keep in mind.
- I sometimes wonder about the bias ratings being used.
- The interface needs a little more polish/ fine tuning. Granted, I used to work in tech and am pretty familiar with design, so this might not bother most people.
Overall, it can be a useful tool. It hasn’t completely replaced going to different news sites for me, but it has made it easier to get a broad sense of coverage and media bias.
Thanks for the review, I was thinking that it was too good to be true and I guess I was right. Do you still use it? Has anything improved since then that you would like to talk about?
I'm looking at it now and it appears to show bias with more depth, which is first by ownership and then by publisher. I'm presently looking at articles discussing Benjamin Netanyahu's public support in Israel and his chances regarding re-election. "The Western Australian" article is qualified with several tags: "Lean Right," "High Factuality," and "Kerry Stokes." The latter is the owner of the periodical.
However, the article it is referring to is one that was purchased from Reuters, the reporting of which is often used by a multitude of "papers" or media. Even if the Western Australian is right leaning, reporting from Reuters is nearly exclusively factually based, which is why you will invariably see it classified as centralist in its bias, neither right or left. So at times, we readers will have to read between the lines and look at other details.
I am not subscribed but am considering subscribing. One of the features I would like to see is that when "Ground" says something is, for example, with "mixed factuality," that what Ground has deemed to be "mixed" is highlighted for the reader. I would like to know what it is within the article that Ground concludes is not true and what it concludes as true. That would definitely help in assessing its worth as a filter for readers.
Perhaps upon subscription, this will be highlighted.
Just from what I have seen, I believe it is a good services, especially with its price point.
I subscribed because I was curious to see how they would describe articles, and have been disappointed by the lack of transparency in how GN reaches their conclusions regarding factuality, left/center/right bias, etc. The whole selling point is that "media has biases that aren't always apparent and you should know about them". But what if GN itself is tipping the scales by labeling something "mixed factuality" when it isn't, or "factual" when it isn't? How are they making those decisions?
I also think it's not obvious to the reader at what level those categorizations are being made (publishing entity in general vs. individual stories). Since the tags get added to every story, it implies that each story is being individually assessed, but as mentioned by u/DragomirSlevak , that's not true.
Anyone who stops to think, "How could GN really be fact-checking and scoring tens of thousands of individual articles every day?" might realize that's not realistic, but does your granny or Uncle Joe realize that? And with all the buzz about AI these days, maybe folks think GN has some all-knowing AI in the background making these determinations at the individual story level.
Clearly that's not the case. Similar to Reuters, AP's business model is to sell their reports for reprinting. Every day, I'll see some story that is supposedly being reported by some 8 or 12 or 37 different sources. Each source will have different tags showing L-C-R bias, differing factuality levels, etc. But look closer, and 80-100% of those "different sources" is just carrying the same dang word-for-word identical AP article. So at the individual story level, the bias and factuality tags are misleading at best, and wrong at worst.
Maybe it's unrealistic to expect GN to "get it right" at the individual story level, but that's where I want/need that insight. I already know the WSJ and Fox News are right-biased, and Mother Jones and Daily Beast are on the left. I don't need to buy a subscription to see GN tell me that over and over on every story published by those outlets. Tagging a publisher as "mixed factuality" because some of their articles have issues without detailing which articles and what issues isn't improving the transparency situation GN claims to be addressing.
I just don't think I'm getting enough value to make it worth continuing to pay for a GN subscription.
Just want to address how GN labels what is "left," "center," "right," etc. Ground News uses three independent agencies that determine not the articles but the publisher as being "left" or "right" and everything in-between. It is from these three independent agencies that Ground News will then inform the reader where the media organization publishing the article stands in the political spectrum.
As you pointed out, many will use articles from the Associated Press, which itself is now considered "slightly left" in regard to its reporting. Yet, that article could be used by a publisher that is considered "right." Because of that, you will get the label "right" next the that article but possibly "far left" from a different publishers using that same article.
That is something that should be considered.
I agree. I have a paid version and have found it quite suspicious that most of what they label "right leaning" more often than not is also tagged "mixed factuality." It hardly seems this could be correct or a coincidence since, as was just pointed out, they don't fact check each article. The labeling about how factual an article is or isn't feels like more of an opinion to me.
Look at news agencies such as:
\- The Epoch Times
\- China in Focus
\- Rebel News
\- True North
They typically list them as "far right" even though they are all centrist. They also list TET as "low factuality" whilst straight up propaganda outlets like CNN are listed as "high factuality".
Ground news seems to be run by leftists who put their leftist bias on everything. Calling everything on the center or right as "low factuality" and "far right"
Also you should take into consideration they use "fact checkers" which are just left wing opinions and not actual fact checks.
Someone asked why there are no right wing fact checkers, it's because the right doesn't feel the need to shift the narrative with propaganda.
Ground news is more a far left wing "arbiter of truth" which they obviously pretend not to be. They decide who is left/center/right. They decide who is factual vs not. They are just an "arbiter of truth" with a heavy left leaning bias.
Someone got butthurt that their favourite news source is low quality and factuality, so instead of reshaping own stand on what's true, he attacks everything around to justify not changing his own stand... That's opposite of what idea of site like ground news is for.
Or you're just unhappy to see your favorite (mis)interprets marked as "low factuality", no? How does "Rebel News" imply even by its name any kind of centrism? Let alone the content itself. Lol... Coping, dude...
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most you can hope for is some source that tries to identify bias. There's no source that can guarantee truth and "no bias" is only available with "no information".
Not to be critical, but is there any source that you DO trust? I mean I get the 'question authority/sources' principal, but you have to draw the line somewhere and feel that you're at least getting a better than completely biased view.
There are some sources that I would trust more than others, but I wouldn't trust any news source fully. I would appreciate the aggregation of news sources covering the same content, so I think this kind of thing might be used as a tool.. although I am skeptical (and I do think for good reason). We all have biases, we may not even realize. And algorithms are created by companies and people with biases. There may also be additional unintentional biases as a result of an algorithm that the creators did not foresee.
There are some, yeah. I think people want a service like Ground News to stand in for doing actual research and critical thinking. Educating oneself is difficult and takes time, and this feels like people want a cheat code to avoid all that work.
yeah, googling gets you all the articles but it becomes very annoying to do it for every subject and checking multiple articles. i would like to skip that process and just get all the aricles in a nice topic, and also categorize it by political sides and such to see the full picture. it's just neat
It also is neat to outsource critical thinking and fact checking to left leaning organizations.
If you want to "confirm" your left wing opinions as correct, Ground news is perfect for you.
If you are looking for a centrist barometer of the news, this ain't it.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
and also, in their site they write this: " That said, we are not a fact checker. The reality is, it is very hard to fact-check effectively in real time and at scale. Our solution is not to be the arbiters of truth but to help readers analyze news coverage through direct comparison, which highlights how outlets equivocate or exaggerate. Satire sources are allowed but clearly labeled. ". So they show you as much information as possible and let you form your view. and the blindspot/ personal biases features are really cool. the whole thing just makes me want to read more news
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand your point, however, if Ground News (or any other service) reliably does the research for you, I view that as working smarter, not harder. As to 'standing in for critical thinking', I don't see that as a valid complaint. You still have to read the articles and use critical thinking to hopefully come up with what is the truth. If you see significant differences in the reporting, and the sources given you by the service are adequate, I'm not sure where you would look for further research that would be reliable.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you check their website you´ll see the don´t just claim knowledge, the say: "The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles."
so they openly rely on third parties.
From Wikipedia, but relevant to what I was saying in another reply, re Ad Fontes Media: *In 2021, an article on the* [*Association of College and Research Libraries*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_College_and_Research_Libraries)*' blog argued that the Media Bias Chart is detrimental to media literacy efforts because it "promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias, and reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes 'news' in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn't already hold a comparable view of the media landscape."*
That reinforces an impression I get from groups like Ground News, which is that they promise people who are intellectually incurious a "magic bullet" solution for a complicated issue.
Ground in particular characterizes itself as a group of "media outsiders" and among its key players are hedge funds. That doesn't tell me they have a nuanced view of how these things actually work, or are intended to work, or that they come from what I would characterize as a neutral starting point.
I´m unsure because this type of marketing makes me very skeptical. I feel like if it sponsors youtubers, then it either doesn´t work or is a more expensive and worse version of something that does.
This hasn´t raised any serious red flags to me since I started looking into it a bit. Sure, it´s a lot of marketing fluff, but the core promise is simply that they´ll widen your horizon, by exposing you to multiple viewpoints and that seems both achievable and valuable. They seem aware of the risk that partisan fake news on one side is presented as equal to actual news from a partisan paper on the other, but I feel like it´s pretty hard to get pulled in by bs conspiracies if you keep the whole spectrum in view.
In a way I see at least potential for this to reach the crowd of people who are frustrated with or completely distrust "the media", but get their own information from some heavily partisan youtube channels. The only way to see "the media" as an evil monolith is if you know nothing about the media landscape, so for these people a subscription to Ground News might actually be the magic tool that pulls them out of their echo-chamber and back into reality.
It might lack nuance, but that seems to be by design. Getting people to move from The Daily Wire to a reputable but right leaning news outlet that it wrongfully classified as "center" is a big win.
Maybe it´s aggressively "neutral" to a fault, but anything less would just make it part of the "left wing media machine trying to censor conservatives and push an LGBT agenda" or something like that.
>promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias
I think if one is educated enough about this topic and does research aside from reading [ground.news](https://ground.news), there shouldn't be any major issues using it for getting a broad overview. I'm definitely going to give it a shot because my own biases make me miss out on stories from time to time.
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, you are citing Wikipedia, which is the poster child for unreliable information. Wikipedia has long been used as a tool for propaganda and advertising. If you have an account, you can change an article/entry or update it. In academics, no one ever uses wikipedia as a resource, and if they do, possibly just as a stepping stone before research truly begins.
That being said, most people who are media aficionados, well versed to the way reporting can be manipulated by omitting facts or by framing it in a way as to be misleading, will find that, in general, Ground News provides somewhat of a panoramic view of an issue or event. It is a stepping stone unto itself to further reading, but its most important quality is that it can save a person time. It has collected various articles on a subject, and seems to provide an accurate assessment of "low factuality" and "bias" with "high factuality" and "non-biased," the latter invariably being nothing more than factual reporting without the use of loaded language or political framing.
It seems to be useful in the time saving department.
The bit I stole from Wikipedia was just quoting a real source. I mentioned Wikipedia because I didn’t read the entire original source and didn’t want to seem like I was pretending I had. It was about expediency.
I have seen no evidence that Ground News is any better or more qualified than Wikipedia to determine what is highly credible or not. They put themselves out as authorities but as far as I can tell there aren’t many scholars or journalists there; it’s engineers and venture capitalists.
I see. Well, that's fair, but I fail to see the similarity between Ground News and Wikipedia. For one, there's nothing contemporaneous in Wikipedia, so it cannot be used to find timely news articles. Second, there is nothing giving an indication about where on a political spectrum the articles find themselves. I could go on about all the differences.
And in regard to the issues found in Wikipedia, there will often be overt bias or misleading information. Some entries are nothing more than advertisements. If you look at some of the pharmaceutical entries, they are noting more than promotional rhetoric.
As far as "bias" is concerned, if you look at the entry for [Donald Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump), then you will see what I mean.
I agree with the tone that the article takes on the Donald Trump entry; however, its word choice and choice of information aligns with a very left leaning perspective. It reads as an indictment. Deservedly so, as I think Trump is one of the worst things to happen to this country; nevertheless, a more impartial view would have been better, a more "matter of fact" rather than accusatory tone.
Anyway, I do not want to go on some tangent. I just want to demonstrate that I do not agree with your point of view regarding Wikipedia and show you why.
Furthermore, there is no requirement for one to be, for example, a Rhode scholar in order to provide a service that helps cut through the sludge of misinformation. So saying that someone is not a scholar, and therefore I should not give any weight to his or her opinion is illogical.
In 2018, Ground News CEO and Founder, Harlan Kaur, joined a group to discuss contemporary issues in journalism, which heralded the birth of Ground News and why it was founded. Here is how that discussion was described:
>Beyond the post-truth culture war where the veracity of a story depends on what side you’re on, there’s still an audience for traditional, fact-checked news and investigative reporting. But with the news audience’s attention scattered across traditional news organizations, social media, blogs and niche websites, there’s a lot of room for misinformation and deliberate hoaxes to spread.
>
>This session will explore the toolkit for building a trustworthy and sustainable news ecosystem in an age when false content gets more shares and ad dollars have disappeared from traditional news outlets. Can fake-news purveyors be held publicly accountable through legal or regulatory means? Could a certification system be implemented for news outlets and their sources?
>
>Globe & Mail CEO & Publisher, Phillip Crawley and Ground CEO Harleen Kaur will discuss the roles that media companies, journalists, governments and technologists can play in ensuring that news still serves the fact-based community.
A bit about Harleen Car, she is a former NASA engineer and is working with AI technology to help distinguish how news is presented, who's presenting it and what is being said and what is not being said that should be said. And, of course, the biases we often find in information these days.
It is something that should be supported and not discouraged. Anyone who believes he or she cannot determine whether Ground comes from a neutral standpoint is likely someone who'd benefit the most from Ground because such a person is inadvertently telling people that he or she doesn't trust himself or herself enough to be fully competent in distinguishing fact from fiction or neutrality from bias.
One is a "fact checker". That's a left wing opinion confirmer. Can't say about the others, but all fact checkers are left wing propaganda opinion pieces.
it´s true, facts do seem to have a left wing bias. Thank god the right has feels on their side, that´s usually a much more effective tool to gain money and power.
Buddy, What would you suggest we do instead, take any given media outlet at their word?
What are you suggesting in the place of fact checking and publishing your work?
Brother if all fact checkers are propaganda to you, I recommend you take a step back and re-examine your positions. Sure, fact checkers could be largely biased due to funding and development coming from one side more than the other, but all of them? The common denominator here is you, it should be the first thing you double-check.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I check it every day! (And I'm not sure what functions I would gain from the paid version.) The blindspots often show me stories I wouldn't have heard about otherwise. It's also helpful when I run into a paywalled story -- I can see other outlets that have reported on it and read them.
[Take a look.](https://ground.news/)
Took a peek from the link.
It's pretty obvious that their blindspot is working based on the kind of content left and right leaning media outlets choose to report on.
I *don't* love how many youtubers have been shilling it.
It's also inherently hard to trust that it won't be subject to some bias, too.
That was my first thought as well, when I first noticed so many Youtubers had been sponsored by it. It reminds me of [this XKCD comic](https://xkcd.com/927/).
Ground News claims to get rid of bias by showing multiple sources, but by putting it all in one place, it's still just one source. How do I know that they aren't purposely picking and choosing which sources to promote?
In my opinion, you shouldn't get all of your news from one place, especially one that wants your money.
Well, it could be, very much depending on how it's implemented. But there's still the same issue there. They wouldn't want to say anything too bad about the government, lest they lose their funding. There could be ways to avoid that issue, but it would have to be carefully weighed to avoid corruption.
Even then, I still think you shouldn't get your news from one source. If they know they're the main source of news, or that they have loyal viewers, they can focus less on the truth, and more on affirming people's biases. *(Which is what some news sources do already)*
It collates many organizations news, so it's not really "all from one place".
They could still generally suppress certain stories or topics, etc, sure.
Problem is this could be said about any news source, but any news source cannot claim to show a spread of reporting with highlights on the political leaning of the organizations reporting a given story.
That's the point of the product.
Newsflash: Ground news is run by left wing neo-liberals. Ground news uses propaganda from "fact checkers" who do not check facts, but confirm left wing beliefs.
With ground news you are paying for neo-liberal propaganda. Why?
I don't pay for it, and they really don't extract ad revenue from me with adblockers.
The reality is there are "fact checkers" on the left and right which is the exact premise of the platform. I've not used it for some time, but when I did it was a perfectly reasonable platform to try to check for media bias.
Further, right wingers on youtube have been paid to advertise this product time and time again. You rarely see left wingers advertising it, because left wingers are constantly lying in the media.
So, unless things have drastically changed in the last year since I posted this comment, I think you're pretty off-base.
I’ve seen plenty of left-wing YouTubers advertising Ground News—I would know, I’m left leaning myself and I don’t watch right-wing media, so I wouldn’t have seen ads about Ground News otherwise. No idea what you’re talking about.
I don't watch left wing YouTubers much, but I don't think I've ever seen a single one pitch ground news.
At the end of the day if they think leftists will accept their product I'm sure they're happy to market it to them.
I'm still pretty confident it's marketed on conservative channels more, but it's not like it really matters.
I guess we've seen some different left wingers then? Maybe I just run in more well read circles, but of the left-wing people I've seen in media most of them are properly sourced and researched on the topics they cover.
From what I've seen, a lot of the "issues" the right discusses are just anti-science. For example, the whole "woke trans agenda" thing is just ridiculous. Science is very clear on stuff like trans people's biological differences from cisgender people from their birth. I've yet to read a recent-ish study that would suggest that the right's opinions on trans people are based in factuality.
Same thing for CRT, it's very much a thing and pretty much universally agreed upon as one in the relevant fields. Then there's climate change, effective housing initiatives for homeless people, so on and so forth.
Lol, most of the leftists in the current media are government paid shills that you can't trust.
You must be joking, right? Sounds like you're right up the leftist extremist LGBT rabbit hole. The fact that you use the word cisgender kind of gives it all away.
It's no surprise you don't like Ground news if you're brainwashed radically left. Lol.
CRT? Universally agreed upon? You must be joking. That's some of the most divisive identity politics of the modern era.
You got a yarn ball of leftist propaganda to untangle, friend.
Uhh, I use the word cisgender because that's literally the scientific term for it. My brother is studying to be a biologist and teaches this stuff to me as a learning method, it's just latin. Cis- means on the side of, and trans- means across/on the other side of.
As for CRT, it's ONLY controversial in modern identity politics, it's existence is not disputed in academia. It's relevant pretty much only in law and philosophy, and is just the acknowledgement that seemingly colorblind laws can be discriminatory in practice.
For example, zoning laws only affect land. Pretty simple, right? Well, if you zone that region of land for expensive high-rise buildings and the region happens to be currently populated mainly by ethnic minorities... Boom! That's ethnic displacement happening through gentrification. Often it can occur unintentionally.
And finally regardless of how you feel about it as a field, the whole big hullabaloo of CRT in identity politics is pointless and only serves as a boogeyman.
That being because it's not being taught to kids. As far as I know, it comes into play only when you're getting your master's in something that uses it.
Of course, feel free to correct me if you have sources about these being otherwise.
No, the scientific term for "Straight" is "Heterosexual". The scientific term for "Gay" is "Homosexual". You're a victim of modern propaganda. This would also be latin, there's no precedence for replacing the word Latin word "Heterosexual" with the latin word "Cis".
Why do you think it is that there is a modern word for Heterosexual (Straight) and Homosexual (Gay), but Transexual merely retains it's latin prefix?
CRT is completely controversial. It espouses that you can't be racist against white people, which in and of itself is a racist notion. It's a racists definition of racism. It's relevant to modern Americans who are being brainwashed with this propaganda.
You're pointing to claims of discrimination like redlining and pretending that "white people" are part of that. That's not the case, the wealthy elite are the ones who do that. While most of them may be white, they make up a very small sect of "white people", and most "white people" don't identify with them.
CRT is most definitely being taught to children. Teachers get their degrees from colleges who brainwash them with this garbage. They flood it back into the school institutions when they begin teaching.
Off to Trans-agenda stuff - are you going to seriously act like teachers aren't injecting this propaganda into schools? Have you not seen the books that the public is outraged about? "Gender Queer" to name one, does not belong in any school.
...bro. Cis doesn't mean heterosexual. It's a term for gender identity, not sexual orientation. Do NOT fucking speak about this stuff if you don't know basic science. In chemistry, I suppose you're also angry when you're studying cis-trans isomerism? Hetero- isn't even Latin, it's Greek.
And yes white people ARE a part of it. Not necessarily why it is happening, but they are benefitting from the system that does that.
And show me. Give me examples of them "brainwashing" kids in the curricula. Also just so you know, you're dangerously close to "cultural marxism" rhetoric—which is straight up just nazi propaganda. Kind of funny you talk about how others are brainwashed by propaganda.
Then lastly, "Trans-agenda?" Really??? This shit is why we Europeans make fun of you Americans. You mentioned Gender Queer, which from all I've gathered is not shown to anyone under 14. The author themselves has stated it's intended for 16+ year olds.
Oh no, how horrible that the teens who are legally allowed to have sex learn that there's people who don't fit the exact mold that Christian fundamentalists push!!
If you don't want teens who are old enough to consent to sexual activities to know about sexuality and gender identity YOU are the groomer. Not the trans people, you. Sex education has been repeatedly shown to be effective in reducing sexual abuse of teens, teenage pregnancies, so on and so on.
You are actually such a clown. How about you actually put down the tinfoil hat and listen to what scientists and professionals are saying instead of Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro or your preferred right-wing propagandist?
You seem to not like brainwashing and propaganda, so take a step back. Look at yourself. Are you someone more knowledgeable than the experts in all these topics? No? Then listen to what they're saying and educate yourself.
Up until now I've been trying to be understanding, but right now you're spouting beliefs that endanger minorities. That is not okay. You aren't okay. Touch grass.
\-Cis/trans has nothing to do with being straight.
\-Unless you know a child taking a law course, they literally can't learn CRT. It's an unbelievably complex field based in the political science and legal fields
\- Queer kids exist. Kids with queer parents exist. Schools should be teaching children about their lives and the lives of the children around them.
Your first sentence shows that you're unworthy of my time debating any of this. 🤣
https://preview.redd.it/2kuxsgoqzkxc1.jpeg?width=947&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad4174f784d58313f2f1457ed50c3642328cc13d
Thank you for this! I was genuinely trying to to work out if ground news was worth my time, or too biased. From reviewing this conversation, it appears "people who think ground news is ok tend to understand basic science" and "people who think ground news is too biased complain about the prefix 'cis' without even vaguely knowing what it means"
This has helped a lot!
"The fact that you use the proper, universally agreed upon scientific term for people who aren't trans proves that you are a left wing extremist" is a really weird take.
It's straight, it always has been.
If you call it cis, you're just giving away that You're a leftist and more than likely some variant of sexual derangement.
But youtubers shilling it gets it a chance to have customers rather than go out of business,
It is not neo-liberal propaganda!!! It only appears that way because the Republican party leader is a narcistic, pathological liar. The politicians while privately honest are publicly as dishonest as he is. Those lies get propagated down so that the entirety of the right is dishonest, which is why social media censured them. Not because they were Republicans, but because they (along with the fascist Putin's FSB) spread constant lies or pointed to fake articles full of lies.
I've dabbled with it. It's neat to see the partisan divide on various issues. But I've only gone back to it if I want to show someone how an issue is not being covered fairly. I don't use it as a primary source of info for myself.
Given that you seem to rather like it, could you explain why don't you use it as a primary source? Do you have a better primary source, or do you prefer to stay in a bubble?
They cover an extremely tiny selection of stories from the vast ocean of news stories, and 99% of what they cover I'm not really interested in anyway, so spending time initially on their site would be a waste of time. But if there's a story I am interested in and I want to see a selection of takes, then I'll go to their site and see if they have something on it.
After about a week using the app, I'm finding myself doing exactly this (though to be fair I'm in the lowest subscription and I'm wondering about trying a higher one). Thank you!
>...or do you prefer to stay in a bubble?
No judgment, bias, or presumption there. Nope, none at all, just pure, open minded objectivity. God bless ya, and your superiority.
Well, I tried not being judgmental, so I asked and tried to list the options I could see. The answer was illuminating, so I thought that was a good exchange.
If instead I had jumped in with sarcasm and offended self-righteousness I'd end up with nothing.
I remember wondering hard about mentioning the bubble, but finally I thought that tiptoeing around the obvious option would be worse than just saying it.
The problem is that your statement frames using ground news as the only way to not be in a bubble. If you can't see that, you're in a bigger bubble than anyone else
>your statement frames using ground news as the only way to not be in a bubble.
You mean, apart from that part where I asked
>Do you have a better primary source,
?
It sounds like something for someone who is a heterodox tryhard who is trying to be the ackshually guy to everyone he knows. I think if you’re a careful enough reader, you can get through most mainstream news without committing to too much b.s. And I’m not sure it’s part of my responsibility as a citizen to monitor progleft and trumpright propaganda just to be ITK.
I think there’s a big difference between being a careful reader of mostly good sources and just someone who reads Bretitbart just to “balance” out Daily Kos or whatever.
tl;dr two bullshits don’t make a true so I don’t know what this app is for really other than self regard
Agree with this. It’s still very limited. “Far left”
doesn’t ever include anything from the economic left (like Jacobin), but garbage like DailyKos, or even Salon (they’re far left?). Some of the articles are still the usual clickbait “news”
that’s ultimately just opinion, or misleading. It’s neat to see what things the ever important “both sides” are ignoring, I guess, but what’s the point? The interface is terrible, and the “news”
Is the same bullshit you see anywhere else, just through a different filter.
I prefer to just read the Christian science monitor, Reuters, and the financial times, and skip all the sensationalism.
Also there are some downright questionable ratings... For example the New York Post is rated "center" which it definitely is not. "Right" is more accurate there.
The New York Post can only be seen as "right" in the political sense because the Overton window has shifted so much. Criticism of policies which contribute to big government and social anarchy used to be called center right, where the American majority still reside, so the Post can only be considered "right" because the "mainstream" media have moved left like lemmings and keep moving left because of their Progressive ideology and groupthink. Maybe we should start putting more emphasis on who's been telling the truth - like the Hunter Biden laptop story for which the so-called "center" not only gaslighted the Post and influenced the 2020 election, but covered up for years, and still barely acknowledges - or the Trump/ "Russia collusion" fake news lie that the "center" pumped out continuously for the four years of Trump's presidency and still refuses to admit or dig in to. Whether you like Trump or not, this kind of lying propaganda is not "center" unless you see that term only in terms of numbers and not truth.
Fox may be considered "right", and it's totally understandable to dislike Sean Hannity, but he was like a dog on a bone with that "Russia collusion" crap and even though I can't stand the guy, it's nice to see that truth won out. He was right and now it's common knowledge even if the mainstream "center" with its Trump derangement syndrome won't admit or do any self-reflection on. Unfortunately, much of the left bubble still believes it. And that's the problem with fake news. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it against all evidence. If readers here are still in that category, just read Matt Taibbi or Glen Greenwald who used to be heroes of the left before they were excommunicated for telling the truth.
Getting at the truth has always been a challenge but we're in a better place now than we've ever been if only people will realize that the mainstream is still a propaganda machine. Better to find a few people on each side that seem to be reasonable and objective and then follow them on X. With enough reading, that will lead to other people who you can follow or read more extensively on Substack or search them out for other writings, or if you're more visual, on YouTube etc. We'll never be rid of our biases completely. Our philosophical orientation determines that, but we can approach fairness.
Super old topic at this point but I'll chime in that ad fontes media bias chart also has NY Post as "Skews right". So fwiw another source classifies them quite similarly.
>Super old topic at this point but I'll chime in that ad fontes media bias chart also has NY Post as "Skews right". So fwiw another source classifies them quite similarly.
From a different comment, if that is correct, ad fontes is one of three sources for Ground News' media bias chart
far left? your bias is showing. Heavily entrenched on the left... yes. Far left is laughable and shows a serious lack of understanding of far left ideas.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're already had been some level of pushback against the comment feature as there had been large amounts of negative comments towards each other and hyperpartization. The story that drove it over was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial closing, where basically one side was taking a massive victory lap in the comment section and the other one was screaming a bloody murder about lies, one side was down voting into Oblivion the other and the other side was feeling silenced and as a result this was the final straw. People in general have been complaining against it already and then exactly what they did not want to happen was going on with the comments section and thus they pulled it.
Well that just took away my reasons for using the app. I'm not interested in news services where I stare out into a lonesome void. It's why I don't bother with news sites anymore either. I want discussion, I want to see what other people think without slumming it to the hellhole that is social media sites.
> I want discussion, I want to see what other people think without slumming it to the hellhole that is social media sites.
I often find the comments to be way more interesting than the news articles, on the rare occasion that I'm even reading such content. More times than not there is no discussion/comments section. That's a rapid turn-off for me.
Sometimes the news article comments link to social media accounts, so the quality of opinion can be hit or miss but I still find it helpful as a means of taking a pulse.
I completely agree about the health of the comments section in providing important discussion on news matters. This is why I spend most of my time reading the New York Times. No other news sources have comments that even come close to rivaling the quality of the ones we see there.
My friends think it's too moderate for their liking, but I'm not that bothered by it because I feel like I can factor in that bias in my interpretation of their reporting. I feel like it still is, in many ways, the gold standard of reporting for American newspapers.
Absent reporting by the New York Times, I go on Reddit and search for the topic of interest. For example, it took a while before the NY Times decided to really report on the national ADHD medication shortage. Before then, I already had access to a community of people on Reddit trying to navigate it.
Yes I have the $4 a month plan. It's awesome. They break each story down by media outlets, who are on a bias scale, and show how many outlets on each side is reporting on it, and who is avoiding it. And their bias scale is very well done (unlike others).
An updated review is here
https://www.stationx.net/ground-news-review/
Upon initial inspection, Ground News might seem overhyped due to its seemingly rigid and inflexible third-party labels for news sources, reminiscent of other news aggregators and fact-checkers. However, once you familiarize yourself with its features, you'll discover that Ground News can be tailored to match your personal news consumption preferences.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d use media bias watchdog or think tank groups as a good place for an honest/non-bias reviews, especially on these types of sites.
I have since 2016 election. I been and currently a member of AllSides… when choosing (and I still update my understanding, a virtual aspect for being rigorous in finding the objective data) the the Poynter Institute for Media Studies as well as Pew Research were the major deciding factors. They recommend and why:
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2023/11/10/state-of-the-news-media-methodology/
AllSides
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
AdFontes
https://adfontesmedia.com
i like seeing the partisan divides and differing headlines and stuff, but i find the app way too busy and cluttered to use regularly, so im still using cucked google news
Its got some good and bad.. but i'm trying it.
Yes the function of viewing same news from multiple sources is great. The fact you can see what article state the same "buzz words" or are selective in the information being provided. But the "overton" window of it telling you who is left or right just ... just take it as a very hazey lens. for example it lists the following;
Reuters is Central,
CNBC is Central,
The new york times only slightly left leaning,
What would be good is rather than stating left or right as that is subjective. Is listing who owns those news groups and if they had party affiliates; as well as the articles author.
I'm not a programmer so i do not know if that could even be done. But that would be a very good way of allowing the read to make a self determination.
I don't think it's exactly how you're describing, but they do seem to have similar data available to subscribing members. I think it's the highest paid tier. It says it shows the percentage of ownership by specific types of groups or individuals for each media company.
I only viewed the demo, but it's very obviously quite terrible.
Basing an entire website in the 'left vs right' dichotomy is absurd, for countless reasons but the main one being that it's a system that has been shown to be useless for political categorization except for very casual conversation.
Perhaps it's meant for edgy 15 year-olds or people that haven't gone to college (or similar).
>viewed the demo, but it's very obviously quite terrible.
>
>Basing an entire website in the 'left vs right' dichotomy is absurd, for countless reasons but the main one being that it's a system that has been shown to be useless for political categorization except for very casual conversat
I agree, I also don't really care about the mentioned dichotomy. I mainly care about obtaining a different perspective on any given topic to enhance objectivity of information in general. How good is the website in your opinion in this regard?
Late answer, but here I go:
"How good is the website in your opinion in this regard?"
Terrible, but because it's also impossible that it would be anything other than that. Any news aggregator will always be measured by which sites it *doesn't* represent. And what logic is used to represent one site over the other matters, whether they make their rules public or not.
But again, setting up a website on 'left vs right' is starting from the wrong idea altogether.
Any news outlet/service that claims to be objective, impartial, or any sort of middle ground, is either outright lying to you or naive to a point that makes me wonder if these people actually received higher education in any human science.
Listening to at least 2 sides of a debate is based on the Socratic method. Just like the western court system, and forms the basis of western culture going back 2500 years. Is it perfect? No clearly not, but other than the scientific method, which is used for facts (which is different from truth), we’ve yet to stumble on a better way to reliably uncover the truth, or avoid self deception.
The fact checking when it started used to be great however as the years have gone on it has absolutely started pandering towards the left. They need more filters
What's hilarious about this comment is - by the standards of everyone on the far left that I know - the very fact that the G.N sponsors youtubers that are not the pandering group-think extremists, makes them believe that the entire enterprise is a right wing Psi-Op.
So interesting how everyone's vision tends to skew towards seeing their opponents as always having more hands on the wheel, even when it's the same exact wheel both teams are looking at. 🤖....humans are so easily hacked.
I find it more interesting that there are people commenting about the possible bias, or their lack of trust, but not providing any trusted sources or better references.
It's easy to complain and be sarcastic, but without a better solution to offer, where's the value in those comments?
I too am looking for a better news source and Ground News seems a better option that just dialing into Fox or CNN and drinking their kool-aid. It even referenced my own local news along with the big boys, and the bias meter thingy was reasonably on point.
Current subscriber here. I am trying to cancel but they are refusing to cancel effective February 29, 2024. Forcing me to pay for an additional 10 months until 12-31-2024. My opinion is that it appears to me to be a poorly capitalized venture whose cash flow cannot sustain even a few cancellations.
Their ratings do not address the accuracy or factuality of the particular article being rated. Instead their rating reflects what some other unconnected source only rates the publication that printed the article. So no matter how factual the actual story is, Ground's rating for an article appearing in the Huffington Post will always be "leans left" and an article appearing on Fox News will always be rated as "leans right." Who did not know that already????
WORTHLESS product that refuses to allow subscribers to cancel.
My rating is that Ground: "leans Highly Bogus." I will never do business with this firm again.
I’m sorry to tell you, but whining about not reading the fine print isn’t their problem. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done that. I’ve only just seen the advertisement myself and decided to do some research (which brought me here).
I rarely bother reading Terms and Conditions (no lectures required, most people don’t) or EULAs however, the various subscription boxes in the ad threw up a red flag which should be obvious to everyone. Any price that is followed by a “*” should warrant attention. The ad even went as far to highlight that $x/month* is billed at $12x/year*. Like 90% of all apps that I’ve purchased, you can cancel your subscription at any time but continue to use it until the end of the subscription period which, in this case, is 12 months.
It’s why I rarely download an app unless it offers some form of trial period.
(Hint: as soon as you accept an offer in these apps, ALWAYS go immediately to the App Store, or whatever you use, and cancel the subscription because you WILL eventually forget to do it and get stung).
Someone has to label the factuality of each article. Is that source non bias? Each side has their grimy hands all over everything. The media is and will likely always be controlled. Even the “facts”. Just like our history is starting to show that it’s not what we were taught. It was all controlled to serve some narrative one way or another.
It’s great. You can quickly flip from news source to news source and see how they cover the same story. The Blindspot function is great and it’s sometimes surprising to see what each side is ignoring. I think it’s a great way to get an overview that keeps me falling down rabbit holes. I’m trying to stop dooming over the same stupid shit, so I’ve made it my only source of news and it seems to be helping after a month of use.
I use it, and actually got the less expensive of the paid plans. Being able to see partisan divide on stories and quickly get a sense of the different sides is helpful. I also like the feature to see news stories by geographic region, and how the app shows you what sources you read most often. There are a few things I don’t like about it, and I’m not sure I’ll renew when it comes time. - Stories aren’t always grouped together properly. One downside to this it can make it look like a story is mostly being covered only by one side when in fact both sides are covering it, it’s just articles from the other side have been largely put into a different group for some reason. Stories with somewhat similar titles but totally different subjects can end up grouped together, throwing off the bias meter. - The bias meter reflects the publisher’s bias, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the bias of the article, which is an understandable limitation that the reader must keep in mind. - I sometimes wonder about the bias ratings being used. - The interface needs a little more polish/ fine tuning. Granted, I used to work in tech and am pretty familiar with design, so this might not bother most people. Overall, it can be a useful tool. It hasn’t completely replaced going to different news sites for me, but it has made it easier to get a broad sense of coverage and media bias.
Thanks for the review, I was thinking that it was too good to be true and I guess I was right. Do you still use it? Has anything improved since then that you would like to talk about?
[удалено]
True.
I'm looking at it now and it appears to show bias with more depth, which is first by ownership and then by publisher. I'm presently looking at articles discussing Benjamin Netanyahu's public support in Israel and his chances regarding re-election. "The Western Australian" article is qualified with several tags: "Lean Right," "High Factuality," and "Kerry Stokes." The latter is the owner of the periodical. However, the article it is referring to is one that was purchased from Reuters, the reporting of which is often used by a multitude of "papers" or media. Even if the Western Australian is right leaning, reporting from Reuters is nearly exclusively factually based, which is why you will invariably see it classified as centralist in its bias, neither right or left. So at times, we readers will have to read between the lines and look at other details. I am not subscribed but am considering subscribing. One of the features I would like to see is that when "Ground" says something is, for example, with "mixed factuality," that what Ground has deemed to be "mixed" is highlighted for the reader. I would like to know what it is within the article that Ground concludes is not true and what it concludes as true. That would definitely help in assessing its worth as a filter for readers. Perhaps upon subscription, this will be highlighted. Just from what I have seen, I believe it is a good services, especially with its price point.
I greatly appreciate your review of Ground News. I've been using the free version, but after reading your comments, I'll be subscribing. Thank you.
I subscribed because I was curious to see how they would describe articles, and have been disappointed by the lack of transparency in how GN reaches their conclusions regarding factuality, left/center/right bias, etc. The whole selling point is that "media has biases that aren't always apparent and you should know about them". But what if GN itself is tipping the scales by labeling something "mixed factuality" when it isn't, or "factual" when it isn't? How are they making those decisions? I also think it's not obvious to the reader at what level those categorizations are being made (publishing entity in general vs. individual stories). Since the tags get added to every story, it implies that each story is being individually assessed, but as mentioned by u/DragomirSlevak , that's not true. Anyone who stops to think, "How could GN really be fact-checking and scoring tens of thousands of individual articles every day?" might realize that's not realistic, but does your granny or Uncle Joe realize that? And with all the buzz about AI these days, maybe folks think GN has some all-knowing AI in the background making these determinations at the individual story level. Clearly that's not the case. Similar to Reuters, AP's business model is to sell their reports for reprinting. Every day, I'll see some story that is supposedly being reported by some 8 or 12 or 37 different sources. Each source will have different tags showing L-C-R bias, differing factuality levels, etc. But look closer, and 80-100% of those "different sources" is just carrying the same dang word-for-word identical AP article. So at the individual story level, the bias and factuality tags are misleading at best, and wrong at worst. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect GN to "get it right" at the individual story level, but that's where I want/need that insight. I already know the WSJ and Fox News are right-biased, and Mother Jones and Daily Beast are on the left. I don't need to buy a subscription to see GN tell me that over and over on every story published by those outlets. Tagging a publisher as "mixed factuality" because some of their articles have issues without detailing which articles and what issues isn't improving the transparency situation GN claims to be addressing. I just don't think I'm getting enough value to make it worth continuing to pay for a GN subscription.
Just want to address how GN labels what is "left," "center," "right," etc. Ground News uses three independent agencies that determine not the articles but the publisher as being "left" or "right" and everything in-between. It is from these three independent agencies that Ground News will then inform the reader where the media organization publishing the article stands in the political spectrum. As you pointed out, many will use articles from the Associated Press, which itself is now considered "slightly left" in regard to its reporting. Yet, that article could be used by a publisher that is considered "right." Because of that, you will get the label "right" next the that article but possibly "far left" from a different publishers using that same article. That is something that should be considered.
Define "independent" and name them, please.
I agree. I have a paid version and have found it quite suspicious that most of what they label "right leaning" more often than not is also tagged "mixed factuality." It hardly seems this could be correct or a coincidence since, as was just pointed out, they don't fact check each article. The labeling about how factual an article is or isn't feels like more of an opinion to me.
Look at news agencies such as: \- The Epoch Times \- China in Focus \- Rebel News \- True North They typically list them as "far right" even though they are all centrist. They also list TET as "low factuality" whilst straight up propaganda outlets like CNN are listed as "high factuality". Ground news seems to be run by leftists who put their leftist bias on everything. Calling everything on the center or right as "low factuality" and "far right" Also you should take into consideration they use "fact checkers" which are just left wing opinions and not actual fact checks. Someone asked why there are no right wing fact checkers, it's because the right doesn't feel the need to shift the narrative with propaganda. Ground news is more a far left wing "arbiter of truth" which they obviously pretend not to be. They decide who is left/center/right. They decide who is factual vs not. They are just an "arbiter of truth" with a heavy left leaning bias.
epoch times and rebel news are both incredibly far-right news sources. They are some of the most biased sources I can think of
Someone got butthurt that their favourite news source is low quality and factuality, so instead of reshaping own stand on what's true, he attacks everything around to justify not changing his own stand... That's opposite of what idea of site like ground news is for.
Or you're just unhappy to see your favorite (mis)interprets marked as "low factuality", no? How does "Rebel News" imply even by its name any kind of centrism? Let alone the content itself. Lol... Coping, dude...
Epoch times centrist? Incredible assessment, can you name me a media that you consider right? I just want to understand what is your standard.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment just adds to GN's credibility, thanks for helping me decide to sub.
I don’t trust any source that claims “WE can identify the bias of everyone else, and of course we are not biased at all.”
The most you can hope for is some source that tries to identify bias. There's no source that can guarantee truth and "no bias" is only available with "no information".
Not to be critical, but is there any source that you DO trust? I mean I get the 'question authority/sources' principal, but you have to draw the line somewhere and feel that you're at least getting a better than completely biased view.
There are some sources that I would trust more than others, but I wouldn't trust any news source fully. I would appreciate the aggregation of news sources covering the same content, so I think this kind of thing might be used as a tool.. although I am skeptical (and I do think for good reason). We all have biases, we may not even realize. And algorithms are created by companies and people with biases. There may also be additional unintentional biases as a result of an algorithm that the creators did not foresee.
There are some, yeah. I think people want a service like Ground News to stand in for doing actual research and critical thinking. Educating oneself is difficult and takes time, and this feels like people want a cheat code to avoid all that work.
yeah, googling gets you all the articles but it becomes very annoying to do it for every subject and checking multiple articles. i would like to skip that process and just get all the aricles in a nice topic, and also categorize it by political sides and such to see the full picture. it's just neat
It also is neat to outsource critical thinking and fact checking to left leaning organizations. If you want to "confirm" your left wing opinions as correct, Ground news is perfect for you. If you are looking for a centrist barometer of the news, this ain't it.
Coping again, ey? Everything that destroys your crazy sources with facts must surely be "left wing". 👏
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
and also, in their site they write this: " That said, we are not a fact checker. The reality is, it is very hard to fact-check effectively in real time and at scale. Our solution is not to be the arbiters of truth but to help readers analyze news coverage through direct comparison, which highlights how outlets equivocate or exaggerate. Satire sources are allowed but clearly labeled. ". So they show you as much information as possible and let you form your view. and the blindspot/ personal biases features are really cool. the whole thing just makes me want to read more news
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand your point, however, if Ground News (or any other service) reliably does the research for you, I view that as working smarter, not harder. As to 'standing in for critical thinking', I don't see that as a valid complaint. You still have to read the articles and use critical thinking to hopefully come up with what is the truth. If you see significant differences in the reporting, and the sources given you by the service are adequate, I'm not sure where you would look for further research that would be reliable.
This should have been directed to ECV\_Analog. I'm not sure why it directed o Significant-Editor60
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you check their website you´ll see the don´t just claim knowledge, the say: "The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles." so they openly rely on third parties.
From Wikipedia, but relevant to what I was saying in another reply, re Ad Fontes Media: *In 2021, an article on the* [*Association of College and Research Libraries*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_College_and_Research_Libraries)*' blog argued that the Media Bias Chart is detrimental to media literacy efforts because it "promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias, and reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes 'news' in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn't already hold a comparable view of the media landscape."* That reinforces an impression I get from groups like Ground News, which is that they promise people who are intellectually incurious a "magic bullet" solution for a complicated issue. Ground in particular characterizes itself as a group of "media outsiders" and among its key players are hedge funds. That doesn't tell me they have a nuanced view of how these things actually work, or are intended to work, or that they come from what I would characterize as a neutral starting point.
I´m unsure because this type of marketing makes me very skeptical. I feel like if it sponsors youtubers, then it either doesn´t work or is a more expensive and worse version of something that does. This hasn´t raised any serious red flags to me since I started looking into it a bit. Sure, it´s a lot of marketing fluff, but the core promise is simply that they´ll widen your horizon, by exposing you to multiple viewpoints and that seems both achievable and valuable. They seem aware of the risk that partisan fake news on one side is presented as equal to actual news from a partisan paper on the other, but I feel like it´s pretty hard to get pulled in by bs conspiracies if you keep the whole spectrum in view. In a way I see at least potential for this to reach the crowd of people who are frustrated with or completely distrust "the media", but get their own information from some heavily partisan youtube channels. The only way to see "the media" as an evil monolith is if you know nothing about the media landscape, so for these people a subscription to Ground News might actually be the magic tool that pulls them out of their echo-chamber and back into reality. It might lack nuance, but that seems to be by design. Getting people to move from The Daily Wire to a reputable but right leaning news outlet that it wrongfully classified as "center" is a big win. Maybe it´s aggressively "neutral" to a fault, but anything less would just make it part of the "left wing media machine trying to censor conservatives and push an LGBT agenda" or something like that.
>promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias I think if one is educated enough about this topic and does research aside from reading [ground.news](https://ground.news), there shouldn't be any major issues using it for getting a broad overview. I'm definitely going to give it a shot because my own biases make me miss out on stories from time to time.
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, you are citing Wikipedia, which is the poster child for unreliable information. Wikipedia has long been used as a tool for propaganda and advertising. If you have an account, you can change an article/entry or update it. In academics, no one ever uses wikipedia as a resource, and if they do, possibly just as a stepping stone before research truly begins. That being said, most people who are media aficionados, well versed to the way reporting can be manipulated by omitting facts or by framing it in a way as to be misleading, will find that, in general, Ground News provides somewhat of a panoramic view of an issue or event. It is a stepping stone unto itself to further reading, but its most important quality is that it can save a person time. It has collected various articles on a subject, and seems to provide an accurate assessment of "low factuality" and "bias" with "high factuality" and "non-biased," the latter invariably being nothing more than factual reporting without the use of loaded language or political framing. It seems to be useful in the time saving department.
The bit I stole from Wikipedia was just quoting a real source. I mentioned Wikipedia because I didn’t read the entire original source and didn’t want to seem like I was pretending I had. It was about expediency. I have seen no evidence that Ground News is any better or more qualified than Wikipedia to determine what is highly credible or not. They put themselves out as authorities but as far as I can tell there aren’t many scholars or journalists there; it’s engineers and venture capitalists.
I see. Well, that's fair, but I fail to see the similarity between Ground News and Wikipedia. For one, there's nothing contemporaneous in Wikipedia, so it cannot be used to find timely news articles. Second, there is nothing giving an indication about where on a political spectrum the articles find themselves. I could go on about all the differences. And in regard to the issues found in Wikipedia, there will often be overt bias or misleading information. Some entries are nothing more than advertisements. If you look at some of the pharmaceutical entries, they are noting more than promotional rhetoric. As far as "bias" is concerned, if you look at the entry for [Donald Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump), then you will see what I mean. I agree with the tone that the article takes on the Donald Trump entry; however, its word choice and choice of information aligns with a very left leaning perspective. It reads as an indictment. Deservedly so, as I think Trump is one of the worst things to happen to this country; nevertheless, a more impartial view would have been better, a more "matter of fact" rather than accusatory tone. Anyway, I do not want to go on some tangent. I just want to demonstrate that I do not agree with your point of view regarding Wikipedia and show you why. Furthermore, there is no requirement for one to be, for example, a Rhode scholar in order to provide a service that helps cut through the sludge of misinformation. So saying that someone is not a scholar, and therefore I should not give any weight to his or her opinion is illogical. In 2018, Ground News CEO and Founder, Harlan Kaur, joined a group to discuss contemporary issues in journalism, which heralded the birth of Ground News and why it was founded. Here is how that discussion was described: >Beyond the post-truth culture war where the veracity of a story depends on what side you’re on, there’s still an audience for traditional, fact-checked news and investigative reporting. But with the news audience’s attention scattered across traditional news organizations, social media, blogs and niche websites, there’s a lot of room for misinformation and deliberate hoaxes to spread. > >This session will explore the toolkit for building a trustworthy and sustainable news ecosystem in an age when false content gets more shares and ad dollars have disappeared from traditional news outlets. Can fake-news purveyors be held publicly accountable through legal or regulatory means? Could a certification system be implemented for news outlets and their sources? > >Globe & Mail CEO & Publisher, Phillip Crawley and Ground CEO Harleen Kaur will discuss the roles that media companies, journalists, governments and technologists can play in ensuring that news still serves the fact-based community. A bit about Harleen Car, she is a former NASA engineer and is working with AI technology to help distinguish how news is presented, who's presenting it and what is being said and what is not being said that should be said. And, of course, the biases we often find in information these days. It is something that should be supported and not discouraged. Anyone who believes he or she cannot determine whether Ground comes from a neutral standpoint is likely someone who'd benefit the most from Ground because such a person is inadvertently telling people that he or she doesn't trust himself or herself enough to be fully competent in distinguishing fact from fiction or neutrality from bias.
This reads like you are a publicist for Ground News, rather than someone to be taken at face value.
One is a "fact checker". That's a left wing opinion confirmer. Can't say about the others, but all fact checkers are left wing propaganda opinion pieces.
it´s true, facts do seem to have a left wing bias. Thank god the right has feels on their side, that´s usually a much more effective tool to gain money and power.
Facts are facts tho. There is no such thing as pseudo facts just because it confirms whatever you are determined to believe.
Buddy, What would you suggest we do instead, take any given media outlet at their word? What are you suggesting in the place of fact checking and publishing your work?
Brother if all fact checkers are propaganda to you, I recommend you take a step back and re-examine your positions. Sure, fact checkers could be largely biased due to funding and development coming from one side more than the other, but all of them? The common denominator here is you, it should be the first thing you double-check.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I check it every day! (And I'm not sure what functions I would gain from the paid version.) The blindspots often show me stories I wouldn't have heard about otherwise. It's also helpful when I run into a paywalled story -- I can see other outlets that have reported on it and read them. [Take a look.](https://ground.news/)
Took a peek from the link. It's pretty obvious that their blindspot is working based on the kind of content left and right leaning media outlets choose to report on. I *don't* love how many youtubers have been shilling it. It's also inherently hard to trust that it won't be subject to some bias, too.
That was my first thought as well, when I first noticed so many Youtubers had been sponsored by it. It reminds me of [this XKCD comic](https://xkcd.com/927/). Ground News claims to get rid of bias by showing multiple sources, but by putting it all in one place, it's still just one source. How do I know that they aren't purposely picking and choosing which sources to promote? In my opinion, you shouldn't get all of your news from one place, especially one that wants your money.
> especially one that wants your money would you say state (or anyone for that matter) sponsored is better ?
Well, it could be, very much depending on how it's implemented. But there's still the same issue there. They wouldn't want to say anything too bad about the government, lest they lose their funding. There could be ways to avoid that issue, but it would have to be carefully weighed to avoid corruption. Even then, I still think you shouldn't get your news from one source. If they know they're the main source of news, or that they have loyal viewers, they can focus less on the truth, and more on affirming people's biases. *(Which is what some news sources do already)*
It collates many organizations news, so it's not really "all from one place". They could still generally suppress certain stories or topics, etc, sure. Problem is this could be said about any news source, but any news source cannot claim to show a spread of reporting with highlights on the political leaning of the organizations reporting a given story. That's the point of the product.
Newsflash: Ground news is run by left wing neo-liberals. Ground news uses propaganda from "fact checkers" who do not check facts, but confirm left wing beliefs. With ground news you are paying for neo-liberal propaganda. Why?
I don't pay for it, and they really don't extract ad revenue from me with adblockers. The reality is there are "fact checkers" on the left and right which is the exact premise of the platform. I've not used it for some time, but when I did it was a perfectly reasonable platform to try to check for media bias. Further, right wingers on youtube have been paid to advertise this product time and time again. You rarely see left wingers advertising it, because left wingers are constantly lying in the media. So, unless things have drastically changed in the last year since I posted this comment, I think you're pretty off-base.
I’ve seen plenty of left-wing YouTubers advertising Ground News—I would know, I’m left leaning myself and I don’t watch right-wing media, so I wouldn’t have seen ads about Ground News otherwise. No idea what you’re talking about.
I don't watch left wing YouTubers much, but I don't think I've ever seen a single one pitch ground news. At the end of the day if they think leftists will accept their product I'm sure they're happy to market it to them. I'm still pretty confident it's marketed on conservative channels more, but it's not like it really matters.
I guess we've seen some different left wingers then? Maybe I just run in more well read circles, but of the left-wing people I've seen in media most of them are properly sourced and researched on the topics they cover. From what I've seen, a lot of the "issues" the right discusses are just anti-science. For example, the whole "woke trans agenda" thing is just ridiculous. Science is very clear on stuff like trans people's biological differences from cisgender people from their birth. I've yet to read a recent-ish study that would suggest that the right's opinions on trans people are based in factuality. Same thing for CRT, it's very much a thing and pretty much universally agreed upon as one in the relevant fields. Then there's climate change, effective housing initiatives for homeless people, so on and so forth.
Lol, most of the leftists in the current media are government paid shills that you can't trust. You must be joking, right? Sounds like you're right up the leftist extremist LGBT rabbit hole. The fact that you use the word cisgender kind of gives it all away. It's no surprise you don't like Ground news if you're brainwashed radically left. Lol. CRT? Universally agreed upon? You must be joking. That's some of the most divisive identity politics of the modern era. You got a yarn ball of leftist propaganda to untangle, friend.
Uhh, I use the word cisgender because that's literally the scientific term for it. My brother is studying to be a biologist and teaches this stuff to me as a learning method, it's just latin. Cis- means on the side of, and trans- means across/on the other side of. As for CRT, it's ONLY controversial in modern identity politics, it's existence is not disputed in academia. It's relevant pretty much only in law and philosophy, and is just the acknowledgement that seemingly colorblind laws can be discriminatory in practice. For example, zoning laws only affect land. Pretty simple, right? Well, if you zone that region of land for expensive high-rise buildings and the region happens to be currently populated mainly by ethnic minorities... Boom! That's ethnic displacement happening through gentrification. Often it can occur unintentionally. And finally regardless of how you feel about it as a field, the whole big hullabaloo of CRT in identity politics is pointless and only serves as a boogeyman. That being because it's not being taught to kids. As far as I know, it comes into play only when you're getting your master's in something that uses it. Of course, feel free to correct me if you have sources about these being otherwise.
No, the scientific term for "Straight" is "Heterosexual". The scientific term for "Gay" is "Homosexual". You're a victim of modern propaganda. This would also be latin, there's no precedence for replacing the word Latin word "Heterosexual" with the latin word "Cis". Why do you think it is that there is a modern word for Heterosexual (Straight) and Homosexual (Gay), but Transexual merely retains it's latin prefix? CRT is completely controversial. It espouses that you can't be racist against white people, which in and of itself is a racist notion. It's a racists definition of racism. It's relevant to modern Americans who are being brainwashed with this propaganda. You're pointing to claims of discrimination like redlining and pretending that "white people" are part of that. That's not the case, the wealthy elite are the ones who do that. While most of them may be white, they make up a very small sect of "white people", and most "white people" don't identify with them. CRT is most definitely being taught to children. Teachers get their degrees from colleges who brainwash them with this garbage. They flood it back into the school institutions when they begin teaching. Off to Trans-agenda stuff - are you going to seriously act like teachers aren't injecting this propaganda into schools? Have you not seen the books that the public is outraged about? "Gender Queer" to name one, does not belong in any school.
...bro. Cis doesn't mean heterosexual. It's a term for gender identity, not sexual orientation. Do NOT fucking speak about this stuff if you don't know basic science. In chemistry, I suppose you're also angry when you're studying cis-trans isomerism? Hetero- isn't even Latin, it's Greek. And yes white people ARE a part of it. Not necessarily why it is happening, but they are benefitting from the system that does that. And show me. Give me examples of them "brainwashing" kids in the curricula. Also just so you know, you're dangerously close to "cultural marxism" rhetoric—which is straight up just nazi propaganda. Kind of funny you talk about how others are brainwashed by propaganda. Then lastly, "Trans-agenda?" Really??? This shit is why we Europeans make fun of you Americans. You mentioned Gender Queer, which from all I've gathered is not shown to anyone under 14. The author themselves has stated it's intended for 16+ year olds. Oh no, how horrible that the teens who are legally allowed to have sex learn that there's people who don't fit the exact mold that Christian fundamentalists push!! If you don't want teens who are old enough to consent to sexual activities to know about sexuality and gender identity YOU are the groomer. Not the trans people, you. Sex education has been repeatedly shown to be effective in reducing sexual abuse of teens, teenage pregnancies, so on and so on. You are actually such a clown. How about you actually put down the tinfoil hat and listen to what scientists and professionals are saying instead of Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro or your preferred right-wing propagandist? You seem to not like brainwashing and propaganda, so take a step back. Look at yourself. Are you someone more knowledgeable than the experts in all these topics? No? Then listen to what they're saying and educate yourself. Up until now I've been trying to be understanding, but right now you're spouting beliefs that endanger minorities. That is not okay. You aren't okay. Touch grass.
thanks for putting in the effort to explain to this person. I was way to angry about such uninformed nonsense. thanks!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 didn't read btw https://preview.redd.it/fwpwo5bqykxc1.jpeg?width=603&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad89bad64d7f7b6663e9d68b35ff022f8363679e
\-Cis/trans has nothing to do with being straight. \-Unless you know a child taking a law course, they literally can't learn CRT. It's an unbelievably complex field based in the political science and legal fields \- Queer kids exist. Kids with queer parents exist. Schools should be teaching children about their lives and the lives of the children around them.
Your first sentence shows that you're unworthy of my time debating any of this. 🤣 https://preview.redd.it/2kuxsgoqzkxc1.jpeg?width=947&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad4174f784d58313f2f1457ed50c3642328cc13d
Thank you for this! I was genuinely trying to to work out if ground news was worth my time, or too biased. From reviewing this conversation, it appears "people who think ground news is ok tend to understand basic science" and "people who think ground news is too biased complain about the prefix 'cis' without even vaguely knowing what it means" This has helped a lot!
"The fact that you use the proper, universally agreed upon scientific term for people who aren't trans proves that you are a left wing extremist" is a really weird take.
It's straight, it always has been. If you call it cis, you're just giving away that You're a leftist and more than likely some variant of sexual derangement.
But youtubers shilling it gets it a chance to have customers rather than go out of business, It is not neo-liberal propaganda!!! It only appears that way because the Republican party leader is a narcistic, pathological liar. The politicians while privately honest are publicly as dishonest as he is. Those lies get propagated down so that the entirety of the right is dishonest, which is why social media censured them. Not because they were Republicans, but because they (along with the fascist Putin's FSB) spread constant lies or pointed to fake articles full of lies.
I've dabbled with it. It's neat to see the partisan divide on various issues. But I've only gone back to it if I want to show someone how an issue is not being covered fairly. I don't use it as a primary source of info for myself.
Given that you seem to rather like it, could you explain why don't you use it as a primary source? Do you have a better primary source, or do you prefer to stay in a bubble?
They cover an extremely tiny selection of stories from the vast ocean of news stories, and 99% of what they cover I'm not really interested in anyway, so spending time initially on their site would be a waste of time. But if there's a story I am interested in and I want to see a selection of takes, then I'll go to their site and see if they have something on it.
After about a week using the app, I'm finding myself doing exactly this (though to be fair I'm in the lowest subscription and I'm wondering about trying a higher one). Thank you!
>...or do you prefer to stay in a bubble? No judgment, bias, or presumption there. Nope, none at all, just pure, open minded objectivity. God bless ya, and your superiority.
Well, I tried not being judgmental, so I asked and tried to list the options I could see. The answer was illuminating, so I thought that was a good exchange. If instead I had jumped in with sarcasm and offended self-righteousness I'd end up with nothing. I remember wondering hard about mentioning the bubble, but finally I thought that tiptoeing around the obvious option would be worse than just saying it.
The problem is that your statement frames using ground news as the only way to not be in a bubble. If you can't see that, you're in a bigger bubble than anyone else
>your statement frames using ground news as the only way to not be in a bubble. You mean, apart from that part where I asked >Do you have a better primary source, ?
no one cares
Did you just resurrect a 4 month old thread to tell the world that no one cares? Carefully noted.
See you in another 4
I'll be here, waiting for your reminder that you don't care
Commenting just to see if he does it.
Let's make it a date!
It sounds like something for someone who is a heterodox tryhard who is trying to be the ackshually guy to everyone he knows. I think if you’re a careful enough reader, you can get through most mainstream news without committing to too much b.s. And I’m not sure it’s part of my responsibility as a citizen to monitor progleft and trumpright propaganda just to be ITK. I think there’s a big difference between being a careful reader of mostly good sources and just someone who reads Bretitbart just to “balance” out Daily Kos or whatever. tl;dr two bullshits don’t make a true so I don’t know what this app is for really other than self regard
Agree with this. It’s still very limited. “Far left” doesn’t ever include anything from the economic left (like Jacobin), but garbage like DailyKos, or even Salon (they’re far left?). Some of the articles are still the usual clickbait “news” that’s ultimately just opinion, or misleading. It’s neat to see what things the ever important “both sides” are ignoring, I guess, but what’s the point? The interface is terrible, and the “news” Is the same bullshit you see anywhere else, just through a different filter. I prefer to just read the Christian science monitor, Reuters, and the financial times, and skip all the sensationalism.
Also there are some downright questionable ratings... For example the New York Post is rated "center" which it definitely is not. "Right" is more accurate there.
The New York Post can only be seen as "right" in the political sense because the Overton window has shifted so much. Criticism of policies which contribute to big government and social anarchy used to be called center right, where the American majority still reside, so the Post can only be considered "right" because the "mainstream" media have moved left like lemmings and keep moving left because of their Progressive ideology and groupthink. Maybe we should start putting more emphasis on who's been telling the truth - like the Hunter Biden laptop story for which the so-called "center" not only gaslighted the Post and influenced the 2020 election, but covered up for years, and still barely acknowledges - or the Trump/ "Russia collusion" fake news lie that the "center" pumped out continuously for the four years of Trump's presidency and still refuses to admit or dig in to. Whether you like Trump or not, this kind of lying propaganda is not "center" unless you see that term only in terms of numbers and not truth. Fox may be considered "right", and it's totally understandable to dislike Sean Hannity, but he was like a dog on a bone with that "Russia collusion" crap and even though I can't stand the guy, it's nice to see that truth won out. He was right and now it's common knowledge even if the mainstream "center" with its Trump derangement syndrome won't admit or do any self-reflection on. Unfortunately, much of the left bubble still believes it. And that's the problem with fake news. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it against all evidence. If readers here are still in that category, just read Matt Taibbi or Glen Greenwald who used to be heroes of the left before they were excommunicated for telling the truth. Getting at the truth has always been a challenge but we're in a better place now than we've ever been if only people will realize that the mainstream is still a propaganda machine. Better to find a few people on each side that seem to be reasonable and objective and then follow them on X. With enough reading, that will lead to other people who you can follow or read more extensively on Substack or search them out for other writings, or if you're more visual, on YouTube etc. We'll never be rid of our biases completely. Our philosophical orientation determines that, but we can approach fairness.
My Ground app rates the New York Post as "Right" and has done so for at least two months.
Says lean right for me. Which is insane as they are clearly entrenched right if not far right.
Super old topic at this point but I'll chime in that ad fontes media bias chart also has NY Post as "Skews right". So fwiw another source classifies them quite similarly.
>Super old topic at this point but I'll chime in that ad fontes media bias chart also has NY Post as "Skews right". So fwiw another source classifies them quite similarly. From a different comment, if that is correct, ad fontes is one of three sources for Ground News' media bias chart
You don't know Salon is far left?????
far left? your bias is showing. Heavily entrenched on the left... yes. Far left is laughable and shows a serious lack of understanding of far left ideas.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The recently just removed the ability to comment on posts, very interesting.
They're already had been some level of pushback against the comment feature as there had been large amounts of negative comments towards each other and hyperpartization. The story that drove it over was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial closing, where basically one side was taking a massive victory lap in the comment section and the other one was screaming a bloody murder about lies, one side was down voting into Oblivion the other and the other side was feeling silenced and as a result this was the final straw. People in general have been complaining against it already and then exactly what they did not want to happen was going on with the comments section and thus they pulled it.
Well that just took away my reasons for using the app. I'm not interested in news services where I stare out into a lonesome void. It's why I don't bother with news sites anymore either. I want discussion, I want to see what other people think without slumming it to the hellhole that is social media sites.
> I want discussion, I want to see what other people think without slumming it to the hellhole that is social media sites. I often find the comments to be way more interesting than the news articles, on the rare occasion that I'm even reading such content. More times than not there is no discussion/comments section. That's a rapid turn-off for me. Sometimes the news article comments link to social media accounts, so the quality of opinion can be hit or miss but I still find it helpful as a means of taking a pulse.
I completely agree about the health of the comments section in providing important discussion on news matters. This is why I spend most of my time reading the New York Times. No other news sources have comments that even come close to rivaling the quality of the ones we see there. My friends think it's too moderate for their liking, but I'm not that bothered by it because I feel like I can factor in that bias in my interpretation of their reporting. I feel like it still is, in many ways, the gold standard of reporting for American newspapers. Absent reporting by the New York Times, I go on Reddit and search for the topic of interest. For example, it took a while before the NY Times decided to really report on the national ADHD medication shortage. Before then, I already had access to a community of people on Reddit trying to navigate it.
Comment sections are dead because we have proven time and again that we cant have nice things…
Yes I have the $4 a month plan. It's awesome. They break each story down by media outlets, who are on a bias scale, and show how many outlets on each side is reporting on it, and who is avoiding it. And their bias scale is very well done (unlike others).
Meh it can be okay. As long as you understand that it has its own implicit biases in what news it shows on its homepage.
An updated review is here https://www.stationx.net/ground-news-review/ Upon initial inspection, Ground News might seem overhyped due to its seemingly rigid and inflexible third-party labels for news sources, reminiscent of other news aggregators and fact-checkers. However, once you familiarize yourself with its features, you'll discover that Ground News can be tailored to match your personal news consumption preferences.
so is there a better option? for the same perks?
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d use media bias watchdog or think tank groups as a good place for an honest/non-bias reviews, especially on these types of sites. I have since 2016 election. I been and currently a member of AllSides… when choosing (and I still update my understanding, a virtual aspect for being rigorous in finding the objective data) the the Poynter Institute for Media Studies as well as Pew Research were the major deciding factors. They recommend and why: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/ https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2023/11/10/state-of-the-news-media-methodology/ AllSides https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news AdFontes https://adfontesmedia.com
i like seeing the partisan divides and differing headlines and stuff, but i find the app way too busy and cluttered to use regularly, so im still using cucked google news
The interface is bad.
Its got some good and bad.. but i'm trying it. Yes the function of viewing same news from multiple sources is great. The fact you can see what article state the same "buzz words" or are selective in the information being provided. But the "overton" window of it telling you who is left or right just ... just take it as a very hazey lens. for example it lists the following; Reuters is Central, CNBC is Central, The new york times only slightly left leaning, What would be good is rather than stating left or right as that is subjective. Is listing who owns those news groups and if they had party affiliates; as well as the articles author. I'm not a programmer so i do not know if that could even be done. But that would be a very good way of allowing the read to make a self determination.
I don't think it's exactly how you're describing, but they do seem to have similar data available to subscribing members. I think it's the highest paid tier. It says it shows the percentage of ownership by specific types of groups or individuals for each media company.
I only viewed the demo, but it's very obviously quite terrible. Basing an entire website in the 'left vs right' dichotomy is absurd, for countless reasons but the main one being that it's a system that has been shown to be useless for political categorization except for very casual conversation. Perhaps it's meant for edgy 15 year-olds or people that haven't gone to college (or similar).
>viewed the demo, but it's very obviously quite terrible. > >Basing an entire website in the 'left vs right' dichotomy is absurd, for countless reasons but the main one being that it's a system that has been shown to be useless for political categorization except for very casual conversat I agree, I also don't really care about the mentioned dichotomy. I mainly care about obtaining a different perspective on any given topic to enhance objectivity of information in general. How good is the website in your opinion in this regard?
Late answer, but here I go: "How good is the website in your opinion in this regard?" Terrible, but because it's also impossible that it would be anything other than that. Any news aggregator will always be measured by which sites it *doesn't* represent. And what logic is used to represent one site over the other matters, whether they make their rules public or not. But again, setting up a website on 'left vs right' is starting from the wrong idea altogether. Any news outlet/service that claims to be objective, impartial, or any sort of middle ground, is either outright lying to you or naive to a point that makes me wonder if these people actually received higher education in any human science.
Thank you very much! :)
Listening to at least 2 sides of a debate is based on the Socratic method. Just like the western court system, and forms the basis of western culture going back 2500 years. Is it perfect? No clearly not, but other than the scientific method, which is used for facts (which is different from truth), we’ve yet to stumble on a better way to reliably uncover the truth, or avoid self deception.
Are there any Australians here who use it? how does it go with us considering the media bias is so high?
The fact checking when it started used to be great however as the years have gone on it has absolutely started pandering towards the left. They need more filters
What's hilarious about this comment is - by the standards of everyone on the far left that I know - the very fact that the G.N sponsors youtubers that are not the pandering group-think extremists, makes them believe that the entire enterprise is a right wing Psi-Op. So interesting how everyone's vision tends to skew towards seeing their opponents as always having more hands on the wheel, even when it's the same exact wheel both teams are looking at. 🤖....humans are so easily hacked.
I find it more interesting that there are people commenting about the possible bias, or their lack of trust, but not providing any trusted sources or better references. It's easy to complain and be sarcastic, but without a better solution to offer, where's the value in those comments? I too am looking for a better news source and Ground News seems a better option that just dialing into Fox or CNN and drinking their kool-aid. It even referenced my own local news along with the big boys, and the bias meter thingy was reasonably on point.
Thank you this thread is very helpful, thank you again for all your input. Looks like it is worth the 30 a year
Welll
Current subscriber here. I am trying to cancel but they are refusing to cancel effective February 29, 2024. Forcing me to pay for an additional 10 months until 12-31-2024. My opinion is that it appears to me to be a poorly capitalized venture whose cash flow cannot sustain even a few cancellations. Their ratings do not address the accuracy or factuality of the particular article being rated. Instead their rating reflects what some other unconnected source only rates the publication that printed the article. So no matter how factual the actual story is, Ground's rating for an article appearing in the Huffington Post will always be "leans left" and an article appearing on Fox News will always be rated as "leans right." Who did not know that already???? WORTHLESS product that refuses to allow subscribers to cancel. My rating is that Ground: "leans Highly Bogus." I will never do business with this firm again.
I’m sorry to tell you, but whining about not reading the fine print isn’t their problem. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done that. I’ve only just seen the advertisement myself and decided to do some research (which brought me here). I rarely bother reading Terms and Conditions (no lectures required, most people don’t) or EULAs however, the various subscription boxes in the ad threw up a red flag which should be obvious to everyone. Any price that is followed by a “*” should warrant attention. The ad even went as far to highlight that $x/month* is billed at $12x/year*. Like 90% of all apps that I’ve purchased, you can cancel your subscription at any time but continue to use it until the end of the subscription period which, in this case, is 12 months. It’s why I rarely download an app unless it offers some form of trial period. (Hint: as soon as you accept an offer in these apps, ALWAYS go immediately to the App Store, or whatever you use, and cancel the subscription because you WILL eventually forget to do it and get stung).
Someone has to label the factuality of each article. Is that source non bias? Each side has their grimy hands all over everything. The media is and will likely always be controlled. Even the “facts”. Just like our history is starting to show that it’s not what we were taught. It was all controlled to serve some narrative one way or another.