The most hilarious part is that Ground News tries to present itself as “unbiased” by covering news from “left” and “right”, but it does so from a US perspective, so almost all international sources are considered “left”.
They are not left, it’s you who is right, lol.
Which, BTW, highlights the broader issue of American politics, which is that people were honestly made to believe moderate right is the center, or even left. It is not.
Ground news is pretty dope and the only people hating on it seem to be the people that have never used it, but thinks that it’s automatically bad because of the whole left/right thing.
It’s still a place to consume a large amount of news very quickly and at a glance you can see if one side isn’t reporting on something or if they are reporting on it using very different language or focusing on different aspects on the topic.
Nothing will ever be perfect, but as the saying goes the enemy of perfect is good.
I’ve tried it and I absolutely do not trust it.
And them covering left and right is part of it, yes. It works with made up American definitions of left and right, in which centrists to moderate rights are put on the left. As a result, international coverage is normally represented as left-biased, while really, Ground News and a broader American political landscape is right-biased. This is not a fair coverage and it and it doesn’t allow you to break through the propaganda.
Overall, concept is good, but if you follow this and think you are well-balanced and informed, you are not.
I don’t understand why someone would hate that they show both sides? Like, I’m not a centrist or right winger by any means, but it’s good to get out of the echo chamber sometimes. Everyone needs to be more critical of the media they consume and realize that not everyone thinks the same way they do. I don’t agree with the way the right reports on things, but I want to at least know what I’m not hearing that other people are.
If more people read more news sources, we wouldn’t still have people spouting that “transgenic/transgender” mixup
That’s a very healthy mindset to have. Too many people happily lock themselves into many bubbles/echo chambers and they lose all perspective. Just because you discuss topics with people doesn’tean you have to agree with them. It’s still important to know what other views exist out there.
I wish more people were like you.
I haven’t used it, mainly because I suspect they’re very caught up in the political landscape of the US. I don’t know what to do with a scale that only goes from “you may have some civil liberties as a treat, but only if they don’t affect stock prices” to “if you’re not a rich white hetero man I don’t care if you live or die”
You forgot to mention that your personal favorite feature is the blind spot feature so I suspect you weren’t paid for saying this.
What if I was paid and this was actually just 4d chess guerilla marketing?
JK I wish I was getting paid to say shit like that.
Shit I would do an ad read for the Taliban if it would get me outta financial prison.
Do you even use the blind spot feature? Is it as mind blowing as all the youtubers keep telling me?
Mind blowing? No lol.
But it does reveal what topics both sides either avoid covering or cover poorly.
It’s nothing that should really surprise anyone at this point but it is a good reminder that where you get your news will leave you “blind” (heh) to certain things.
A good example would be like a good guy with a gun situation. Basically any situation that was “saved” by a good guy with a gun doesn’t get much coverage on the left or if they do cover it they tend to ignore the 2A aspect of the event or downplay it’s significance.
On the flip side any news that looks bad for 2A advocates will basically not get reported on by the right at all.
What blind spot is nice for is reading articles from both sides on the same event since they both report on it differently. Reading both and taking into account the underlying biases of each source make you feel like you get a better picture of the whole situation as opposed to just one view.
TL;DR: Not mind blowing at all, but kinda interesting if used correctly.
Yeah… I have a rule that I don’t take any advice from Australians ever.
They lost a war to some overgrown chickens for fuck sake.
So you don’t have any actual counter points to the very good points Friendly Jordies made about your favourite platform? Convince me, I’m on the fence about it.
“my favorite platform” homie it’s an app to read the news. I don’t give a shit if you use it haha.
I think it’s pretty good. Other people don’t. I don’t really care either way. Give it a try if you’re curious.
Does ground news cover articles from sources that aren’t aligned with the false left-right dichotomy? Does it cover these sources without assigning them arbitrary conservative and liberal percentage numbers when the source may be aligned with a different ideology?
I’ll just save you the trouble. Ground news probably isn’t for you.
I’ll save everyone the trouble. If you want unbiased news, Ground News is not for you.
It is literally impossible to get unbiased news. Everyone will have their personal beliefs bleed into what they saw/how they recount the event. More so for companies that send people out into the world to gather said news.
There is just more/less transparency on the bias.
I mean, of the possible sponsors out there, Ground News is pretty alright. I don’t particularly need another subscription, but it seems like a valuable enough service
It’s also very usable even without the subscription and doesn’t have (its own) ads. Just use ad block if you want to actually read any of the articles.
It doesn’t provide any real benefit other than letting you know whether a news site is “left” or “right” leaning. Which is a massive false dichotomy used to divide people.
I prefer objective truth myself.
Where is your source of objective truth?
I wait for it to become so important that it ends up in the meme and shitpost communities.
Back in the day my primary source of news was World of Warcraft. If it was important enough to matter it would show up in the game. If it wasn’t any way inconsequential I never heard of it.
The original source. Be it scientific white papers, court filings, executive orders, the actual text of bills submitted in the house and senate. Etc, etc.
You just have to put in the effort.
To be fair, that does limit your ability to decide what is newsworthy to begin with. Ain’t nobody got the time to read every primary source ever, and sometimes the news is literally just “sources say” until an actual court case or whatever drops.
Granted, if you already know what you want to stay updated on, then cutting out the middleman could be workable. You’re just kinda limited in terms of what you’ll ultimately be exposed to.
I just don’t think the average American can (let alone would) read enough primary sources to keep “up to date” in the political sphere. Add science and tech, and that’s just way too much to wade through. Even seasoned beat reporters miss stuff on their beat.
Oh, no doubt. The world is way to complex to stay on top of everything these days. No one person can do it all.
My point was that Ground News doesn’t really provide anything that other news aggregate sites do – other than “left” and “right” labels for the outlets. Which is a really shitty way to look at the world when you could just pull the original source for whatever you’re interested in. Especially considering that it’s a paid service. You shouldn’t have to pay someone to spoon feed you which lens to use just to keep yourself informed.
I usually avoid speculation and unverifiable “sources” as well. Maybe if the source provided docs to backup their claim and the docs have been vetted. But when it’s an entire article based on “trust me bro”, I just can’t do it.
I haven’t used Ground News past the free trial, but a decent feature that I liked was simply that you could look into “a story” and get virtually all of the possible news reports about that one story. Just handy, tbh. If there are other free aggregators doing that sort of linking and grouping, I’d be interested.
The thing about “sources” I can understand, but I think they still have their place. For example, I really like Ars Technica as a tech and science source. One of the things that sold me on them was seeing them make predictions based on their “sources” and those predictions coming true (or close enough). When it comes to politics, the same thing applies. Have they established enough credibility to warrant me believing their “sources”, at least provisionally?
But if you don’t need or want to be on the cutting edge of political conspiring, then waiting for the court filing, full bill, etc. makes complete sense. I just often might need news, anyway, to understand the broader context of a primary source.
Personally I just check the AP every morning and watch PBS News Hour over dinner if it’s on. But I will poke around on Hacker News and NewsNow if I’m bored, which does have an option to check multiple sources like you mentioned (it’s the stacked orange squares thing next to every headline). Both are 100% free.
And +1 for Ars Technica, I see them writing about right to repair a lot. Which I’m a huge supporter of.
I’m still waiting for the bill that states what happened in Nice last week. /j
This makes me feel like I’m being left out of an inside joke. I don’t like it lol
The joke is that not everything (or almost nothing) that gets reported can be viewed from a lens of “objective truth”. Your examples wouldn’t be able to give me information of a statement that someone did, or if something happened… anywhere.
Those were just examples, I wasn’t trying to limit the scope, hence the “etc. etc.” bit at the end. My point was to verify for yourself. Statements and events can be verified in their own ways. Such as video footage or the minutes recorded during government hearings.
I only get all my news and current events from Raid shadow legends! Or the Hoyoverse whatever the fuck that is.
I’m too busy slamming AG1 to consume news.
I get my news audibly through Raycons
I get mine through the team chat of War Thunder! Enter the code TRTHMNSTRY and receive the special ammo full of facts to shoot straight into your enemies’ face!
By «news» do you mean detailed and confidential schematics for random vehicles and weapons never seen before???
From what I understand it’s like the Metaverse but with sexualized underage anime characters.
I thought that was the metaverse.
Okay fine, the Metaverse with more sexualized underage anime characters.
I didn’t realize that was possible
Just annoying how it adds all the affiliates to different biases. Like, ok, maybe each has their own commentary but no, it’s just the same reposted blurb.
U guys are seeing sponsors? And don’t have sponsor block?
Why use sponsor block? I want to know what sponsors my videos have, because if I see a “Honey” or a “Betterhelp” I’m gonna close the video.
With honey the youtuber was actually the victim, so I wouldn’t judge them too harshly for that one. Small channels don’t have the flexibility to pick whatever sponsor they like. They’re just trying to get by.
I use yt to watch content not to express my political or ideological preferences. My goal is to watch as much content per second possible hence adblock sponsorblock and 2.5 speed.
All the worst sponsors also require a link in description and/or pinned comment so you can know either way.
Ground News aggregates articles from many sources on a single topic and it tells you whether or not each source tends to lean right or left. I think it even tells you if any of those sources leaves out certain pieces of information. It’s actually pretty sweet.
Ground news is no more a news source then an RSS reader is. It just also happens to catagoeize the sources as left or right which helps if you want to actually know what people outside of your personal bubble are reading.
Yeah, it isn’t a single source at all. It’s an algamation of all new sources so you can see the spin from all sides
It’s literally the opposite of a single news source
Ublock Origin in Firefox is my choice among all possible ‘sponsors.’
You watched the Benn Jordan video too huh?
