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.
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
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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...
-
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...
And here I again wonder where your from to have such a mindset
Why does it matter?
These people aren't politicians...
That does not make them a purely objective and neutral third party, particularly when they are funded/employed by a state.
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.
I presented two different examples of how they can be biased; you have ruled out the latter and not the former. I don't even need to have seen Dutch news because you have actually expressed their percieved bias yourself, though you don't realize it. Supporting the validity of the constitution of their state government is a bias, regardless of whether or not you believe that to be a good thing. This is the status quo bias I mentioned.
I think you perceive the word bias to have a negative connotation, but it is actually a neutral term. A bias in favor of human rights, for example, is IMO a good thing.
