No, because the free site and app Verity News exists, which shows different biases, slants, and also the facts, collated from a variety of sources.
It also has a weekly email roundup.
Thank you for sharing this. I will take a look into it.
Is it actually free or is it “free” for the low low price of my private data?
You don’t need an account and websites can’t collect much, so…
“If something is free, you’re the product.” - Richard Serra
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.
…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 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.
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.
For me it is about knowing what potential rhetoric and falsehoods are being spread outside of simply what the facts are.
I find this important because many people who are discussing “facts” that they have read in editorialized articles, with editorializing being a widespread and dangerous issue, are usually also pushing the narrative of the article. It is helpful for me to know how the facts are being spun in order to have a productive discussion because I can prepare for the rhetoric, and try to keep it on the facts.
I have the $10/year plan which is good enough for me. I like to see the media coverage of articles but don’t feel the need for the higher tiers. Ownership breakdowns would be convenient but it’s not hard for me to look up for myself.
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
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?
I dislike one dimentional political categorization. By their use of the typical left/right meter, both “the left” (tankies) and “the right” (US MAGA) wants to stop supporting ukraine, so therefore its “bipartisan”. Lol nope. Fuck the 1-dimentional axis. Add more dimentions and maybe I’ll consider it.
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 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.
Yes, it is flawed from start because it is supposed to be News. Yes it must be factual and free of ideology to accomplish the goal of informing people about the facts.
Unfortunately humans are inherently biased, and it isn’t as easy as you are making it seem to drop trust worthy sources with some bias in favour of other factual sources without bias in the current climate.
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.
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.
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.
