1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
It does a decent job at providing news from the position of American center.
The main problem for me is that American center is absolutely not a center. This shows especially clear when most of the non-US sources are categorized as "left".
So, to me it's more of an illusion of unbiased news, but for comparing two American political parties, it's good.
Maybe I'd get it if they had an API, but idk... So many content creators have pushed it so much it makes me suspicious. I don't trust anything with that big a marketing budget.
I have considered this. There's also the potential that more creators are willing to accept the sponsorship offer because it helps in their work. Making it look disproportionately advertised. I suspect it's a bit of both. Their higher plans are expensive.
Haven't even looked at the pricing but i'd guess it's for news content creation / sentiment analysis or whatever.
This was my red flag as well. I trust my sources that are advertising it, and haven't seen any bad sources advertising it, so I figured it best to ask just in case.
Have you seen any notably bad sources advertising it? I feel like I may not have the full picture.
Consider whether your trusted sources would advertise it without getting paid to do so
I trust my sources advertising it too, but things with big budgets are often not what they seem, both to us and possibly to our sources as well.
Do we know who or what is funding it? Do we have a clear and open set of criteria for media classification? Haven't seen anyone talk about that in advertisements...
I just went through its FAQ for the purposes of this reply and it says founders are ex-NASA and ex-Bain (global management consulting company)... If this doesn't sound like a US Intel thing to you at this point, I doubt we'll agree on anything else. If you're willing to entertain that notion, however, it also says:
"Bias and factuality ratings are averaged from the published ratings from three third-party independent news publication monitoring organizations, when available"
Which are:
So there you go if you want to tumble further down this one. I think I'm good about paying for this service, though. I guess making a large scale project like this one without selling off part of your soul to one devil or another is just not feasible. Oh, well.
Thank you for the time and opinion!
Probably going to do a little more digging before I make a decision, and I appreciate your help.
You used to be able to use that basic service without making an account. Now you are forced ro, so I uninstalled. Why do I need to make an account/provide an email to read news articles?
I used the free version for around a year. I would look at it daily and I felt it had a decent range of content. However, I started to notice factual errors with the summaries of the articles (which I assume are created by AI). This made me worried about all the times I didn’t notice errors and just learned incorrect information and possibly even repeated it to others. I’ve stopped using it and I’m looking for an alternative.
No, because the free site and app Verity News exists, which shows different biases, slants, and also the facts, collated from a variety of sources.
It also has a weekly email roundup.
Thank you for sharing this. I will take a look into it.
Is it actually free or is it "free" for the low low price of my private data?
You don't need an account and websites can't collect much, so...
“If something is free, you’re the product.” - Richard Serra
Thank you for sharing this. <3
I'm not paying for some shit that a dozen yourubers shove down my throats, fuck you
I've been seeing more and more pushback on it lately and I understand it on an emotional level I guess, but I'm not sure if there are sound, factual reasons for it.
Personally I don't use it as I've been on the internet for decades at this point and am pretty confident in checking sources, analyzing bias (usually with the help of tools like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ or https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart if it's not a source I'm immediately familiar with) and trying my best to be aware of my own biases and avoiding conspiratorial thinking (while acknowledging that yes, I am not immune to propaganda).
Where I find it helpful is for my mom. Her partner keeps Fox news on all day long and while she doesn't buy into it, I worry about it being the primary source that events get reported to her. Putting the Ground app on her iPad so she has something to scan through and that will quickly show biases and lopsided reporting is worth it just to hopefully keep her out of the Fox echo chamber at least.
What kind of push back have you been seeing? I haven't seen any myself and you aren't the first to bring it up so If you can point me anywhere that would be helpful!
I am okay at doing that myself as well, but it is more of a time issue than a skill issue for me. I spend too much time trying to keep up with the news I find important. haha
That sounds like a very good use for it, especially considering how horrible being glued to Fox is. I wish your Mom well and hopefully it can help pull her partner out of the Fox sphere!
bystander already replied, but yeah, you can see it a bit in Pudutr0n's response as well. I can't source it any better than that, other than I've seen general mumblings about the trustworthiness of Ground's own bias calculations.
I don't think it's anything that would cause great concern, other than just to say we live in tough times right now. I'll always question everything and never fully trust anything. So it goes.
Here's a video I saw from an Australian YouTuber that voiced his criticisms.
The main 2 critiques I took away from:
But people have different issues with it. Just one person's view point.
It does paint a deeper problem with the US news system.
The creators of Ground News are Canadian, so that tells me this Youtuber didn't even do his homework. Also there are different versions that you can use: US Edition, International, UK, Canada, and Europe
Not defending the YouTuber here. I'm just replying to the OP asking what critiques are out there, and this was one I came across.
I still think their target audience is the US population, as with many digital products made in Canada. It's a pattern I've seen constantly as a Canadian. Larger consumer base = more money.
There are different versions yes, I see the Canadian version when I go on it. I will argue that the product itself is 100% born out of the polarization and decline of American journalism, and media conglomerates owning new organizations with business interests.
you should never use a youtuber as a citation, they often frame things in a way that is beneficial to thier viewership
I never frame the YouTuber as a factual citation, I specifically framed it as a point of view of one person. OP asked for any criticisms going around.
...am I the only one who read that as "NewGrounds" at first?
Thanks, now I want to spend the afternoon playing Ragdollsoft games with Dimrain47 as soundtrack. (I have a Windows XP VM with Flash Player and offline SWF files)
I got fed up with google news showing me benign atrocious garbage all the time but I needed a substitute. So now I’m on groundnews for 2 months and I stopped caring about news all together mostly. Skimming the headlines takes 2 minutes and then I don’t look at the app again. So uhh yeah it kinda cured the fomo
I have the $10/year plan which is good enough for me. I like to see the media coverage of articles but don't feel the need for the higher tiers. Ownership breakdowns would be convenient but it's not hard for me to look up for myself.
This is a genuine question: What do people get out of reading "both sides" (or all sides) of editorialized news? Specifically compared to just reading the facts of the situation.
I've been reading almost exclusively AP News for years (and occasionally listening to NPR), and I really like getting the details of whatever just happened (or is currently happening) without too much of a spin or a "take" on it. I can use the primary sources from the article and then form my own opinions.
It's been awhile since I've done much reading from other sources. I used to like NYT, but not so much recently. I don't really feel like I'm missing much other than the occasional deep dive investigative journalism piece, so I'm curious what other people are getting out of it.
Personally, I like seeing how different sides will spin the same story, because you can see the different talking points being formed in real time.
Let’s say a black dude was shot while resisting arrest. He was originally stopped for jogging in an affluent area, but after the arrest cops discovered a dime bag of crack in his pocket.
AP will report “police shoot man during arrest”.
Fox will report “police defend community from violent drug dealer”.
CNN will report “cops kill handcuffed black man during baseless arrest”.
In the different articles, you can see the different talking points that each side will inevitably use. It means you know what to expect during discussions, which means you can actually have counterarguments prepped for whatever they’ll bring up.
So if everyone would just do as the parent poster said, we'd not need to waste time reading the nonsense spins just to be prepared?
Somehow this doesn't make me want to read spins but I applaud those who do with the goal of keeping everyone else sane
What do people get out of reading “both sides” (or all sides) of editorialized news? Specifically compared to just reading the facts of the situation.
For me it is about knowing what potential rhetoric and falsehoods are being spread outside of simply what the facts are.
I find this important because many people who are discussing "facts" that they have read in editorialized articles, with editorializing being a widespread and dangerous issue, are usually also pushing the narrative of the article. It is helpful for me to know how the facts are being spun in order to have a productive discussion because I can prepare for the rhetoric, and try to keep it on the facts.
I dislike one dimentional political categorization. By their use of the typical left/right meter, both "the left" (tankies) and "the right" (US MAGA) wants to stop supporting ukraine, so therefore its "bipartisan". Lol nope. Fuck the 1-dimentional axis. Add more dimentions and maybe I'll consider it.
Yes, I recommend getting one of the paid tiers. I find it very useful
What tier are you currently using?
I was thinking about the bottom $10 myself just for the breakdowns and such because I don't want to spend all day hunting sources. haha
I'm on the Premium tier, the only useful thing that I miss out on is the Ownership info
The idea that news transport ideologies that need to be evened out is flawed from the get-go.
News must be factual and free of ideology. If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
There is no such thing as unbiased news sources, and any news orgs that claim to be are some of the least credible sources. The most credible news sources are honest and upfront about their biases.
I'd be curious what country/ies the downvoters are from. This is also how I see it but nobody online ever agrees. I suspect it's a culture thing: most people online aren't from the Netherlands and I can't say if this type of news also exists abroad (Tagesschau seems okay but I haven't looked at it in detail or talked with enough germans about it to say that with any confidence whatsoever, and I've got even less info on other countries)
In NL we of course also have some loonies who call the general news channels leftist propaganda, but overall I don't have the impression that places like NOS spin things one way or another. It's also government-funded which, going by the banners google now shows on publicly-funded youtube channels, probably means American readers of this message think I'm completely brainwashed by my government? Who knows, but then I'd be curious to hear what types of things they ever represented counterfactually
You can be completely factual and still biased by the language you use and what you choose to focus on. Publicly-funded media is great and all, but that's because its bias is obvious and upfront, not because it is unbiased. Attempting to be purely objective leads either to a status quo bias or a "centrist" bias where multiple extremes are presented as being equally valid.
Publicly-funded media is great and all, but that's because its bias is obvious and upfront, not because it is unbiased.
And here I again wonder where your from to have such a mindset
These people aren't politicians...
a "centrist" bias where multiple extremes are presented as being equally valid.
You've not seen Dutch news. They don't talk about hate speech as an equally valid option to our constitution the way that you'd expect with the current voting patterns and government composition if your statement were true. This uninformed opinion on what news can and must be, without having seen anything but english-cultural standards it sounds like, is what I mean...
The idea that news transport ideologies that need to be evened out is flawed from the get-go.
News must be factual and free of ideology. If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
Yes, it is flawed from start because it is supposed to be News. Yes it must be factual and free of ideology to accomplish the goal of informing people about the facts.
Unfortunately humans are inherently biased, and it isn't as easy as you are making it seem to drop trust worthy sources with some bias in favour of other factual sources without bias in the current climate.
