31–40 of 70 posts
Am I missing something? Seems the problem is with dodgy, poorly sourced journalism, not Ground News who seem to be doing what they can. 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.
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.
>The data collected here shows that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones 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 wa…
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!
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.
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…
Just to add to my earlier point: Ground News is not a fact-checking service, nor does it claim to be one. While it does provide factual data about media sources, that information is aggregated from multiple third-party evaluators, as stated on its information page. It doesn’t verify the truth of individual news reports—it simply shows how a story was covered. Naturally, this means the platform includes misinformation…
The vast majority of the time it's used to justify either lying or repeating lies.
What exactly is the use of a website apparently designed to give equal weight to lies and facts? How does that benefit anyone?
The world doesn't need yet another journalism-related resource that repeats what other people say instead of attempting to actually find the truth. But doing the former is massively cheaper and easier than the latter.
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 s…
Except this isn't what this guy found. What he found was that right-wing-only stories were invariably lies.
You'd have a point if there was also the same tendency to lying on "the left" (whoever that is supposed to be). Just because you can come up with two sides to an issue doesn't make them equally valid.
There is a truly massive amount of people attempting to prevent criticism of right wing people by constantly deflecting everything with "oh the left wing is just as bad!" and there's an annoying type of person who sees that and believes it.
Like, lies and propaganda are bad for us and our society but we can't get anywhere talking about if everyone has to constantly pretend there are two sides to it.
That first stacked bar chart appears to have "left" and "right" mixed up, if the analysis just below it is correct. Not confidence-inspiring, and hasn't been corrected in 18 months since the post was published...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to add to my earlier point: Ground News is not a fact-checking service, nor does it claim to be one. While it does provide factual data about media sources, that information is aggregated from multiple third-party evaluators, as stated on its information page. It doesn’t verify the truth of individual news reports—it simply shows how a story was covered. Naturally, this means the platform includes misinformation…
I often see this defence of, "it's up to the reader to decide!" pop up in circumstances like this. The vast majority of the time it's used to justify either lying or repeating lies. What exactly is the use of a website apparently designed to give equal weight to lies and facts? How does that benefit anyone? The world doesn't need yet another journalism-related resource that repeats what other people say instead of at…
Personally, I find it helpful to see what people outside my usual information sphere are being exposed to—not just to understand why others may think the way they do, but also to better recognize how that contrast influences the coverage I choose to consume.
Track major new sites over time and build a portal that lets you see the front page news with some time delay (1 month, 3 month, 1 year) and annotate each story with “what happened since then?”
Too often big stories get ignored and forgotten. Or baseless fearmongering and speculation never confronts the fact it didn’t come true. I think we’d all benefit from this ability to step back from the rapid news cycle and see a bigger picture.