Do you have a "GroundNews" subscription, and if so what has the experience been like? Would you recommend it?
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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!
Here's a video I saw from an Australian YouTuber that voiced his criticisms.
The main 2 critiques I took away from:
- Very American to group things as left and right leaning. We have a political compass for a reason.
- All news orgs are just different special business interests. Especially in the US.
But people have different issues with it. Just one person's view point.
It does paint a deeper problem with the US news system.
-
Here's a video I saw from an Australian YouTuber that voiced his criticisms.
The main 2 critiques I took away from:
- Very American to group things as left and right leaning. We have a political compass for a reason.
- All news orgs are just different special business interests. Especially in the US.
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
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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
-
This post did not contain any content.
...am I the only one who read that as "NewGrounds" at first?
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
Here's a video I saw from an Australian YouTuber that voiced his criticisms.
The main 2 critiques I took away from:
- Very American to group things as left and right leaning. We have a political compass for a reason.
- All news orgs are just different special business interests. Especially in the US.
But people have different issues with it. Just one person's view point.
It does paint a deeper problem with the US news system.
you should never use a youtuber as a citation, they often frame things in a way that is beneficial to thier viewership
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm not paying for some shit that a dozen yourubers shove down my throats, fuck you
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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? -
...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)
-
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
-
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
