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.
antifa · 2h ago
> 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 News, because almost all YouTube sponsors are scams, and we remember Honey was recently exposed as a scam, but this isn't enough to convince me.
xerox13ster · 47m ago
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!
mahmoudhossam · 24m ago
There's also ExpressVPN
pstadler · 43m ago
NordVPN, they're the most aggressive.
jayrot · 43m ago
To be a bit pedantic, I think that YouTube sponsors aren't necessarily scams, but are definitely not generally good products or deals. It's a spectrum.
oldandboring · 21m ago
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.
riskable · 1h ago
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 right-leaning sites. Especially considering that nearly all their right-leaning sources have very low or basically non-existent factuality ratings.
...or just remove (entirely) any "news" source that doesn't have a high factuality rating. That would be the most logical choice but I do sympathize with the fact that would remove nearly all right-leaning "news" sites.
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). Which is where they actually sit (in reality). Sites like Breitbart would be discarded entirely as failing tests of factuality.
unsignedint · 28m ago
I believe the main purpose of Ground News—especially the Blindspot feature—is to highlight what the "other side" is reading, rather than to lend legitimacy to the reported content. I still find that information valuable, but perhaps that distinction could have been made more explicit.
wredcoll · 38m ago
I feel like the whole concept of "left/right", when applied to news reporting especially, just makes the "false balance" issue impossible to deal with.
We don't have "right leaning facts", we either have facts or we don't.
And yes, omitting facts or focusing on others can certainly influence people, but we aren't even at that point any more, we have lies being positioned as equally valid "other side" arguments.
ImJamal · 51m ago
> 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 left supported a republic and no monarchy.
Pretty much every news media, regardless if they are now considered "right wing", would meet the definition of left wing historically.
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 News, because almost all YouTube sponsors are scams, and we remember Honey was recently exposed as a scam, but this isn't enough to convince me.
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!
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.
To fix this, Ground.news should update their algorithm to perform much more scrutiny for headlines trending on right-leaning sites. Especially considering that nearly all their right-leaning sources have very low or basically non-existent factuality ratings.
...or just remove (entirely) any "news" source that doesn't have a high factuality rating. That would be the most logical choice but I do sympathize with the fact that would remove nearly all right-leaning "news" sites.
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). Which is where they actually sit (in reality). Sites like Breitbart would be discarded entirely as failing tests of factuality.
We don't have "right leaning facts", we either have facts or we don't.
And yes, omitting facts or focusing on others can certainly influence people, but we aren't even at that point any more, we have lies being positioned as equally valid "other side" arguments.
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 left supported a republic and no monarchy.
Pretty much every news media, regardless if they are now considered "right wing", would meet the definition of left wing historically.