Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

sjodle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#11

Post by oldandboring »

I see where the author is coming from. The author's main gripe is that non-factual right-wing stories are being presented as left-wing blindspots. The author would seemingly prefer that those stories be flagged as being untrustworthy due to low factuality scores among its sources. Understandable but I think it defeats the purpose of Ground News.

I think the idea is that if you are seeking the truth, and Ground News shows you a story that's being covered exclusively by right or left wing sources, that's their signal that the story could be either a) bullshit, or b) something one side is conveniently ignoring because it runs counter to their agenda. Ultimately it's up to you to you to decide. But, this way, if you hear this story being talked about elsewhere, you've now encountered it and know that it's being almost exclusively covered by one side.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#12

Post by unsignedint »

Most of the examples this article cites are ones that exclude any coverage from left-leaning sources—and these are often highly biased articles, frequently lacking in merit. Even with tools like Ground News, media literacy is still essential; you can’t just throw it out the window. From my perspective, it offers a much broader view than simply sticking to one or two news outlets—especially ones you'd normally avoid at all costs (which, to me, is the whole point of the Blindspot feature). While it does provide some historical data, media ownership information, and other insights depending on your subscription level, ultimately it's up to the reader to decide whether the coverage is legitimate.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#14

Post by dlivingston »

riskable wrote: post #3

Summary: Ground.news puts far too much faith in the legitimacy of many right-wing headlines; giving them front-page views as "blindspots". Meaning: Even though the story itself is complete BS/non-factual, the algorithm shows it as a legitimate thing that isn't being covered by left-leaning or centrist news. To fix this, Ground.news should update their algorithm to perform much more scrutiny for headlines trending on…

Sources should really be evaluated on a multi-dimensional axis:

- Factuality (low -> high)

- Partisanship (low -> high)

- Political orientation: social issues (left -> right)

- Political orientation: economic issues (left -> right)

- Political orientation: foreign policy (left -> right)

etc.

Sources like NPR are decisively not centrist w.r.t social issues and partisanship. There has been a distinct change in their reporting over the last ~decade.

(also, I'm aware the left-right scale is very lacking. Economics itself has so many dimensions that left/right is meaningless there.)

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#15

Post by dlivingston »

ImJamal wrote: post #4
riskable wrote: post #3

Summary: Ground.news puts far too much faith in the legitimacy of many right-wing headlines; giving them front-page views as "blindspots". Meaning: Even though the story itself is complete BS/non-factual, the algorithm shows it as a legitimate thing that isn't being covered by left-leaning or centrist news. To fix this, Ground.news should update their algorithm to perform much more scrutiny for headlines trending on…

> If I were in charge I'd reorient the leanings so that sources like NPR would not show up as "left-leaning" but as centrist (i.e. a more European alignment which is more historically accurate/real, IMHO It is not historically accurate. The terms left and right come from the French Revolution. Those on the right supported a strong monarchy, those in a center supported a weak monarchy with a republic, and those on the…

Yes, these things mutate over time. Their historical roots are interesting but have no bearing on their common usage today. A similar story for those who claim left-wing politicians in the USA are really "European centrists" -- possibly true, but pedantic and irrelevant in the context of American left-right discussions.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#16

Post by alganet »

antifa wrote: post #2

> This leads the platform to publish dodgy stories from the right, with the appearance that they are just as valid as high-fact reporting from the left or the center. Sadly, this is downstream of mainstream news itself. I think if Ground News attempted to truly solve this problem, the right would condemn Ground News as "fake news" or controlled by Soros like they do Wikipedia. I'm looking to be skeptical of Ground Ne…

Ground News makes all news be about left versus right. It teaches its users to approach everything as a political battle.

We have enough "left-leaning skeptics" and "right-leaning skeptics", even some "neutral skeptics", but barely any skeptics.

The word "skeptic" is poisoned by I will continue to use it. That's intentional.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#19

Post by georgemcbay »

antifa wrote: post #2

> This leads the platform to publish dodgy stories from the right, with the appearance that they are just as valid as high-fact reporting from the left or the center. Sadly, this is downstream of mainstream news itself. I think if Ground News attempted to truly solve this problem, the right would condemn Ground News as "fake news" or controlled by Soros like they do Wikipedia. I'm looking to be skeptical of Ground Ne…

> because almost all YouTube sponsors are scams

Anything advertising on youtube or podcasts is a negative indicator for me as these platforms have followed the path of talk radio in having a very high ratio of the products that advertise on them being dodgy if not outright scams.

I'm sure there are exceptions that are totally fine, but the pattern follows often enough that if I don't have a pre-existing relationship with a brand before seeing/hearing a youtube or podcast ad for it, it goes into the scam bucket in my head just through the negative advertising platform connection.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#20

Post by thmsths »

xerox13ster wrote: post #5
antifa wrote: post #2

> This leads the platform to publish dodgy stories from the right, with the appearance that they are just as valid as high-fact reporting from the left or the center. Sadly, this is downstream of mainstream news itself. I think if Ground News attempted to truly solve this problem, the right would condemn Ground News as "fake news" or controlled by Soros like they do Wikipedia. I'm looking to be skeptical of Ground Ne…

Honey, Established Titles, BetterHelp, 7CupsofTea, RAID Shadow Legends, FTX, OperaGX, AG1, Factor, HelloFresh, AirUp. How many am I missing? How much more do we need to see to be convinced? I won’t use Ground News or Brilliant (I tried it in 2019 and was unimpressed) because they market so aggressively, something doesn’t smell right!

Don't forget Incogni, I was tempted to subscribe but as you point out, when you see the other kind of services/products youtubers tend to peddle, it gives me pause.
Post reply on HN