It's apparently a news congregate site that shows bias in news articles and rates sources based on left or right leaning, factuality, etc. Seems like it could easily be abused to discredit certain sources, but also might be good for determining which outlets are very biased one way or the other. It's got stupid fucking subscription tiers but a free option as well so there's that. Not going to link it but it's the first result when searching "Ground News" so it's simple to find. Just wondering if anyone here has any experience, as I've seen a few YouTube channels sponsored by it, including non-political channels, and my curiosity is piqued.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
I'm not hoping this replaces common sense or deductive reasoning, just thinking it can be a tool to use that might compliment those things. Thinking "Wow, this news article seems really biased" and then checking if others have had the same thought is more what I'm after, not having a place think for me. It's easy to let our own biases cloud our judgement, so having a way to see what conclusions others have come to is nice.
CoughPHILOSORAPTORcough
Haven’t used it but it doesn’t look bad. You’re going to laugh, but I use RSS for aggregated news. Yep, like it’s 2005. I used Twitter for news for a while since if you follow the right places it can be, but I didn’t really think it was mentally healthy to just constantly give time to the agitating drivel that is on there.
I’ve toyed with the idea of making my own feed app that would also allow following of some social things, e.g. Twitter things not available in RSS, but I never went through with it.
Be sure if you’re taking others opinions of whether a source is right, left, factual, or not with a grain of salt. Whether Ground News or someone posting here. Hell, you should question my definition of fact too even though I am perfect and never ever wrong.
That's basically how I'm feeling about it right now.
These Canadian liberals use wikipedia to determine the 'factuality' of news sources.
It might seem okay because they include Info Wars from time to time, but every article or headlines page is priming you to not trust right news and trust liberal news.
For instance they have Breitbart as "mixed factuality" when they've never posted anything non-factual in their reporting. From a far right perspective, sure, and things liberals wish weren't true, but not false. Wikipedia's 10-paragraph hit piece about their "accuracy and ideology" identifies not a single falsehood.
So if you're okay with being propagandized to on every story, sure, read ground.news.
They may legitimate right now, but will inevitably pull out the bag of tricks (ignoring media stories, changing collected site data, straight up lying) when the election comes near.