21–30 of 70 posts
I think there is a false sense of everything being left v right. Perhaps there could be a few more spectrums on there e.g environmental, fiscal, social?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I agree. I was just commenting on how the historical understanding is not more accurate for today's understanding and how his definition of historical was quite modern still.
> 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.
I also agree, but I think that it is hard to know what politicians actually believe. I'm sure there are a number of communists in congress, they just aren't open about it and support more moderate legislation to not look radical. For all we know many of the left wing US politicians are further left than European ones.
Just looking at what they say and vote is not true to their beliefs.
In the same breath, he quotes an article about it dousing Newfoundland in microplastics; a broad sweeping conclusion from a laughably flawed study method for the given results. And to be fair, this isn't a diss on the student's effort: scientific study is the holy grail. However, that headline and what was actually done represent two incredibly different things.
So in actuality, perhaps he's just calling his own biases out: The Left leaning articles published in Ground News often attempt to invent consensus by quoting one-off studies. Perhaps his own desire "to be right" or social pressure "to be on the forefront of knowledge" fans the thirst for early conclusions.
However this is all scooting around the fundamental problem that we are all individually responsible for critical thinking - ideally developed through primary and secondary education.
Left leaning author is of the opinion that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones, and are less politically polarized. News at 11.
Credible news isn't left leaning as much as it is the leftovers of anyone who doesn't belong to a group that is fundamentally disinterested in an objective view. Credible news is only left leaning to the extent that anyone who doesn't fall into the far right wing spectrum is left leaning. Sort of a false dichotomy.
> 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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/opinion/trump-beirut-poli...
Essentially that in a state of sectarian politics, everything is political.
> ..."During the course of the dinner, someone mentioned the unusual hailstorms that had pelted Beirut the previous two nights. Everyone offered an explanation for this extreme weather event, before Malcolm, tongue in cheek, asked his guests, “Do you think the Syrians did it?”...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
NordVPN, they're the most aggressive.
> 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…
https://imgur.com/a/how-to-create-unique-successful-minimali...
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 a…
Naturally, this means the platform includes misinformation, political spin, and propaganda—because it’s not designed to tell you whether a story is true. As for the Blindspot feature, it may flag sources with a history of low factual reporting, but ultimately, it’s still up to you to decide how trustworthy any given coverage is.