Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Asklemmy
  3. Is there anything similar to Ground News that compares Russian media stories and right-wing talking points?

Is there anything similar to Ground News that compares Russian media stories and right-wing talking points?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Asklemmy
11 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C This user is from outside of this forum
    C This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #1
    This post did not contain any content.
    D D yogthos@lemmy.mlY J 4 Replies Last reply
    1
    0
    • System shared this topic on
    • C [email protected]
      This post did not contain any content.
      D This user is from outside of this forum
      D This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Is there any illusion at this point that the right and Russia aren't fully aligned?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • C [email protected]
        This post did not contain any content.
        D This user is from outside of this forum
        D This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        foxnews.com
        newsmax.com
        oan.com
        tuckercarlson.com
        breitbart.com

        C 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • D [email protected]

          foxnews.com
          newsmax.com
          oan.com
          tuckercarlson.com
          breitbart.com

          C This user is from outside of this forum
          C This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Right, but that does comparative journalism itself by collating all of it together also with Russian State Media

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • C [email protected]
            This post did not contain any content.
            yogthos@lemmy.mlY This user is from outside of this forum
            yogthos@lemmy.mlY This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            I'd rather see something similar to Ground News that compares media narratives to the actual facts. And especially one that goes back and examines which publications were shown to be more aligned with reality retroactively.

            J 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • yogthos@lemmy.mlY [email protected]

              I'd rather see something similar to Ground News that compares media narratives to the actual facts. And especially one that goes back and examines which publications were shown to be more aligned with reality retroactively.

              J This user is from outside of this forum
              J This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              But I thought the entire basis for people wanting a product like ground news was that it can be difficult to get facts or to have a firm grasp of reality where it pertains to the types of events we'd call "news" because the only way in which people other than active participants in the events or journalists, can gather such facts is through media. Since one doesn't reliably know what facts have been omitted or distorted when consuming media, the main way to get another perspective and hear different narratives, framings and details of the story are through any media other than the one you're consuming. This can be misleading because there is a lot of it and in addition to the possibility of outright materially incorrect facts, one could also be gathering the facts within the framework of a perspective that serves agendas or corporate necessities or biases inherent to a given publication. With a lot of different media options including many one mightn't even know about and with opacity surrounding what media is subject to what biases and agendas among other influences the process of comparison and analysis based on multiple media sources is cumbersome and time consuming and likely incomplete. What the ground news guys are claiming to offer is a service where they do some of that work for you and some kind of a methodology by which they do their analysis.

              Whether one trusts them to do it, or if their analysis is fair, or how thorough they are or if their criteria and methodology provide a useful framework for analysis is a different question similarly hard to answer but I don't see how your proposal for comparing against "facts" isn't going to fail for the same reason simply consuming news media uncritically to try and stay informed would. Unless you're experiencing events first hand or personally conducting journalism you're always going to have limited capacity to know what the facts are or how they are distorted by the media from which you get them.

              yogthos@lemmy.mlY 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • C [email protected]
                This post did not contain any content.
                J This user is from outside of this forum
                J This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Might not be exactly what you have in mind, but I have a separate browser that has set as Home the following state-owned or aligned news sources from around the world to check different perspectives on current headlines:

                https://www.bbc.com/ - Britain
                https://www.abc.net.au/news - Australia
                https://english.news.cn/ - China
                https://www.foxnews.com/ - US Right-wing
                https://edition.cnn.com/ - US Left-wing
                https://www.rt.com/ - Russia
                https://english.alarabiya.net/ - Saudi Arabia
                https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097 - Germany
                https://www.batimes.com.ar/ - Argentina
                https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/ - South Africa
                https://ddnews.gov.in/en/ - India
                https://www.cbc.ca/news - Canada
                https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en - Brazil
                https://www.straitstimes.com/global - Singapore
                https://news.un.org/en/ - United Nations
                https://www.sbs.com.au/news - Australia, but more multicultural perspective

                G 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J [email protected]

                  But I thought the entire basis for people wanting a product like ground news was that it can be difficult to get facts or to have a firm grasp of reality where it pertains to the types of events we'd call "news" because the only way in which people other than active participants in the events or journalists, can gather such facts is through media. Since one doesn't reliably know what facts have been omitted or distorted when consuming media, the main way to get another perspective and hear different narratives, framings and details of the story are through any media other than the one you're consuming. This can be misleading because there is a lot of it and in addition to the possibility of outright materially incorrect facts, one could also be gathering the facts within the framework of a perspective that serves agendas or corporate necessities or biases inherent to a given publication. With a lot of different media options including many one mightn't even know about and with opacity surrounding what media is subject to what biases and agendas among other influences the process of comparison and analysis based on multiple media sources is cumbersome and time consuming and likely incomplete. What the ground news guys are claiming to offer is a service where they do some of that work for you and some kind of a methodology by which they do their analysis.

                  Whether one trusts them to do it, or if their analysis is fair, or how thorough they are or if their criteria and methodology provide a useful framework for analysis is a different question similarly hard to answer but I don't see how your proposal for comparing against "facts" isn't going to fail for the same reason simply consuming news media uncritically to try and stay informed would. Unless you're experiencing events first hand or personally conducting journalism you're always going to have limited capacity to know what the facts are or how they are distorted by the media from which you get them.

                  yogthos@lemmy.mlY This user is from outside of this forum
                  yogthos@lemmy.mlY This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  I find it's very difficult to tell what the truth is at the time of reporting. As you point out, there are many different perspective, sometimes facts are omitted, or presented in a way that creates biases, and so on. Seeing many different perspectives can help find the ground truth because you can see what facts are being consistently reported across the spectrum.

                  However, what the actual truth is tends to clear up over time, and this is why I find that it's really useful to look back and see how close the reporting from different sources was compared to what we now know with relative confidence to be true. This is how I evaluate what sources I tend to put more weight on compared to others. I also find it tends to be useful to follow the analysis along with the facts being reported. If somebody provides analysis that's proven correct more often than not, then it's an indicator that their reasoning on the subject is well informed.

                  As an example, a lot of people like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer were dismissed at the start of the war because what they said didn't align with the narrative. Now that the fog of propaganda is starting to clear, we can see that they were largely correct.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J [email protected]

                    Might not be exactly what you have in mind, but I have a separate browser that has set as Home the following state-owned or aligned news sources from around the world to check different perspectives on current headlines:

                    https://www.bbc.com/ - Britain
                    https://www.abc.net.au/news - Australia
                    https://english.news.cn/ - China
                    https://www.foxnews.com/ - US Right-wing
                    https://edition.cnn.com/ - US Left-wing
                    https://www.rt.com/ - Russia
                    https://english.alarabiya.net/ - Saudi Arabia
                    https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097 - Germany
                    https://www.batimes.com.ar/ - Argentina
                    https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/ - South Africa
                    https://ddnews.gov.in/en/ - India
                    https://www.cbc.ca/news - Canada
                    https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en - Brazil
                    https://www.straitstimes.com/global - Singapore
                    https://news.un.org/en/ - United Nations
                    https://www.sbs.com.au/news - Australia, but more multicultural perspective

                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    I’d disagree that CNN is left-wing any more; probably your best bet there is MSNBC.

                    J L 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • G [email protected]

                      I’d disagree that CNN is left-wing any more; probably your best bet there is MSNBC.

                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      Ah okay, cheers for the info! I'm new to US-based sources

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • G [email protected]

                        I’d disagree that CNN is left-wing any more; probably your best bet there is MSNBC.

                        L This user is from outside of this forum
                        L This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        I agree.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • System shared this topic on
                          System shared this topic on
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups