Anyone have experience with Ground News?

Recently, I have been subjected to online ads in YouTube videos touting ground.news.com. I usually ignore such, but these are from sites and videos that I have been trusting for a long time, so I want to look into this.

It appears that Ground News is about as unbiased as you can be, but I am interested in any Dopers who have experience with the site, want to take a look, or have looked deeper than I have.

FYI:

GN is a subscription service, with the most extensive option about $100/year, but the cheapest option is about $10/year. All are billed in one-year increments.

GN seems to lean on these fact-checking sites, so if they are irrationally biased, GN might be, too:

…so it would be interesting if any Doper has investigated those sites and has an opinion.

I haven’t heard of this, but based on your post I looked at them, and it might be very interesting for anyone who is interested in the ability to evaluate news reporting based on the bias of the publication – i.e. they don’t fact check individual articles, they only rate the publications in various ways: by political leaning, especially use of loaded language and attempts to influence rather than report; by ownership; and by something they call a Factuality Score. Some of these things are only available as part of the higher-cost subscriptions, but even the lowest cost subscription has media bias ratings. I recommend anyone interested to be sure to look at the Methodology page – Ground News - Rating System

One thing I haven’t been able to tell from reading the promo information is whether and how much of the rating information I can link to for others (e.g. folks here) to see.

I think I’m going to subscribe to the most comprehensive $100/year model. It seems to me to be worth the gamble. I’ve certainly wasted more money on chancier outcomes.

I will probably subscribe, too, at least for a year. I was hoping someone else here could share experiences first. Maybe it’s too new a site to be well known.

Somebody has to be first. :slightly_smiling_face: Do report back.

It’s interesting. (tl;dr version: it’s a potentially rich source of different versions of the same stories from hundreds of different sources, which gives a very wide view of how stories are being reported in the US (or your area, you can choose when you set up your feed).)

The home page shows a selection of story headlines, culled from numerous sources. I think the headlines are written by Ground News, or maybe AI, based on all the sources. For each headline of a story, they tell you how many sources, and the bias rating, i.e. what percentage are left, center and right (center is defined as no discernible bias, left and right have degrees of bias or loaded language). These bias ratings are for the source as a whole, not for individual stories.

If you click on a headline, you will see an AI-generated summary of all the source stories, followed by a list of the actual source stories. For each source, they show the owner of the source, the Factuality Score and the bias rating (these evaluations are all of the source, not of the individual story). They show the headline and the beginning of the story for each source, and then a link to click if you want to look at the whole story. They start with six or so sources, and then a link to get more sources for that story. I haven’t gone all the way through any particular story, but I presume you can see them all if you want to. I don’t know how they determine what order the sources are shown in.

So for example, the top headline on the left of the Home page is “Donald Trump says he won’t debate Kamala Harris again.” Then it shows 39% left sources, and undefined numbers of center and right sources, and that they used 117 sources.

Click on the headline, and you see the same headline followed by a 3 bullet-point summary of the story, apparently compiled by AI. The summary in this case is pretty Trump-heavy, factual, but barely mentioning Harris except as being criticized by Trump. It’s not clear why that is.

Then the actual articles are shown, headline and beginning of story. It says 224 articles (so average of about 2 articles per source, I guess). The first one listed is from KVIA, a local TV site I guess, but the story was put out by CNN. Kind of confusing, because they call CNN leaning left, but they call KVIA center.

You have the opportunity to give feedback on several of these points. You can say if you think the AI summary is wrong, you can object to the bias rating of any source, and you can report the article, I don’t know what that’s about.

There are other pages for local news, and for Blindspot, which is supposed to be stories that are being reported on the “other side” that you might not be reading. Both are a combination of interesting and not so much. There is also a page “For You” but I can’t figure out the rationale for the selection of stories on that page. The treatment for the headlines, summaries, and story presentation seems to be about the same as for the stories on the Home page.

When you first sign up you can choose areas of interest, and you can change those at any time. I didn’t count them but there were maybe 20 areas, including some that seemed pretty narrow to me. The areas of interest will dictate the stories that are presented to you.

This site clearly has a heavy reliance on AI to process all these stories, but I don’t think the bias ratings or the factuality score of the individual sources are done by AI. At least I hope not, it seems far too complex and with the kinds of judgment that AI is not (yet) equipped to do. Maybe I’m being naïve.

Everything you described, while good, is obtainable from the web site AFAIK. Have you actually used/subscribed to this service? If so, I would like your comment on how useful it is IRL.

I have not looked at afaik dot com before your post. It doesn’t seem to be what you are describing. I also looked at afaik dot io, of which I can make neither head nor tail. It does not seem to be layman-user friendly. Or is there a different site you are referring to?

Nice attempt at a whoosh!

I’ve been using Ground News at the lowest paid tier since 2021. I like it as a first stop in the morning to see an overview of the news of the day. I find the Blindspot report fascinating. The details they give you about the ownership of different news sources are helpful, too.

My absolute favorite feature is the ability to see how different sources are reporting the same story. I have their browser extension that lets me see the distribution for any news story, not just the ones I’ve gone to through the Ground News site. There have been many times when just reading the headlines would make you think they were completely different stories!

It’s definitely helped me understand where my acquaintances with different political views are coming from. I can see that they are not getting information that I thought was common knowledge, or I can see that there are sources interpreting events completely differently that the sources I’m used to.

Thanks, Sine_Nomine. That’s encouraging, and I think I’ll subscribe to some level. I was holding off until I got some first-hand advice.

Early on, with breaking stories, what you’re likely to get is the same AP story reported by a lot of outlets, outlets that have different political leanings and different degrees of factuality in their ratings. That’s kind of frustrating, especially with general news.

I have had mixed reactions to what is offered by this service. The ways that political leanings and factuality evaluations of the individual news outlets are derived seem opaque, and it’s not clear how much is AI and how much is human judgment. Also, the “sources” counted include such things as local news (TV or radio) stations and internet blogs, neither of which I am interested in.

I find the Blindspot feature somewhat suspect. This is where they show left-leaning readers what stories they are not seeing because they are almost exclusively on right-leaning sources, and vice versa. This only seems to work either on puff pieces (what a Trump financial backer says about the Harris tax plan) or stories that are still new and showing on relatively few sources.

It does give me exposure to a wider range of stories than I get on the NPR website. This may be because NPR is fairly cautious about what stories they publish, as to both factuality and significance.

I’ll just mention this, because they’re linked to in so many threads here, that Legal Eagle is one of those Youtube channels that will frequently advertise for them / be sponsored by them, with the ad included at the end of several videos. It often (not always) has a discount offer for a subscription when such videos are posted.

So if you’re a fan of either/both, and there is a current offer up, you may want to take advantage of it!

Ah, just checked, the recent LE video on the Tyreek Hill arrest had one, with a 40% off offer only 5 days ago (as of today, Thursday September 19, 2024) which would likely still be good.

The most recent Rob Words video on runes has a link to the 40% discount too.