295
"Sign Up For MORE Subscriptions in the link in the description below! Also smash like button!"
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
295 points (90.6% liked)
memes
12913 readers
3175 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ground news is pretty dope and the only people hating on it seem to be the people that have never used it, but thinks that it's automatically bad because of the whole left/right thing.
It's still a place to consume a large amount of news very quickly and at a glance you can see if one side isn't reporting on something or if they are reporting on it using very different language or focusing on different aspects on the topic.
Nothing will ever be perfect, but as the saying goes the enemy of perfect is good.
I've tried it and I absolutely do not trust it.
And them covering left and right is part of it, yes. It works with made up American definitions of left and right, in which centrists to moderate rights are put on the left. As a result, international coverage is normally represented as left-biased, while really, Ground News and a broader American political landscape is right-biased. This is not a fair coverage and it and it doesn't allow you to break through the propaganda.
Overall, concept is good, but if you follow this and think you are well-balanced and informed, you are not.
You forgot to mention that your personal favorite feature is the blind spot feature so I suspect you weren't paid for saying this.
What if I was paid and this was actually just 4d chess guerilla marketing?
JK I wish I was getting paid to say shit like that.
Shit I would do an ad read for the Taliban if it would get me outta financial prison.
Do you even use the blind spot feature? Is it as mind blowing as all the youtubers keep telling me?
Mind blowing? No lol.
But it does reveal what topics both sides either avoid covering or cover poorly.
It's nothing that should really surprise anyone at this point but it is a good reminder that where you get your news will leave you "blind" (heh) to certain things.
A good example would be like a good guy with a gun situation. Basically any situation that was "saved" by a good guy with a gun doesn't get much coverage on the left or if they do cover it they tend to ignore the 2A aspect of the event or downplay it's significance.
On the flip side any news that looks bad for 2A advocates will basically not get reported on by the right at all.
What blind spot is nice for is reading articles from both sides on the same event since they both report on it differently. Reading both and taking into account the underlying biases of each source make you feel like you get a better picture of the whole situation as opposed to just one view.
TL;DR: Not mind blowing at all, but kinda interesting if used correctly.
I don't understand why someone would hate that they show both sides? Like, I'm not a centrist or right winger by any means, but it's good to get out of the echo chamber sometimes. Everyone needs to be more critical of the media they consume and realize that not everyone thinks the same way they do. I don't agree with the way the right reports on things, but I want to at least know what I'm not hearing that other people are.
If more people read more news sources, we wouldn't still have people spouting that "transgenic/transgender" mixup
I haven't used it, mainly because I suspect they're very caught up in the political landscape of the US. I don't know what to do with a scale that only goes from "you may have some civil liberties as a treat, but only if they don't affect stock prices" to "if you're not a rich white hetero man I don't care if you live or die"
That's a very healthy mindset to have. Too many people happily lock themselves into many bubbles/echo chambers and they lose all perspective. Just because you discuss topics with people doesn'tean you have to agree with them. It's still important to know what other views exist out there.
I wish more people were like you.
You'll probably find this video interesting then
Yeah... I have a rule that I don't take any advice from Australians ever.
They lost a war to some overgrown chickens for fuck sake.
So you don't have any actual counter points to the very good points Friendly Jordies made about your favourite platform? Convince me, I'm on the fence about it.
"my favorite platform" homie it's an app to read the news. I don't give a shit if you use it haha.
I think it's pretty good. Other people don't. I don't really care either way. Give it a try if you're curious.
Does ground news cover articles from sources that aren't aligned with the false left-right dichotomy? Does it cover these sources without assigning them arbitrary conservative and liberal percentage numbers when the source may be aligned with a different ideology?
I'll just save you the trouble. Ground news probably isn't for you.
I'll save everyone the trouble. If you want unbiased news, Ground News is not for you.
It is literally impossible to get unbiased news. Everyone will have their personal beliefs bleed into what they saw/how they recount the event. More so for companies that send people out into the world to gather said news.
There is just more/less transparency on the bias.