politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wtf is ground dot news
It is a news feed that shows you the backgrounds of the sources of news articles
Was about to ask the same question. Here's MBFC on it:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ground-news/
Seems like a surprisingly decent source.
It’s not perfect, but it’s whole raison d'être is to try to very clearly surface bias annotations of the source in question with any given articles, in addition to which other outlets are reporting the story, also in addition to the ideological spread those other outlets represent. A neat and fairly trivial side effect of this is that it’s super easy to see when stories are being largely pushed or ignored by one particular side, which can often indicate either self-censorship and/or propaganda stories, amongst other things. It’s actually a very interesting media literacy project, and I think it’s a great idea.
What I like about it is the search-by-topic, where it's pretty good at giving you a whole spread of stories from a ton of different sources about whatever the topic is.
Way better than google's news tab, which is pretty garbage.
It is not a decent source and this now makes me question the legitimacy of MBFC. In this post, there are at least three entirely different stories https://ground.news/article/illegal-migrant-convicted-after-raping-child-assaulting-ice-officer_05781e
For anyone with reading comprehension issues....
https://www.newsweek.com/honduran-illegal-immigrant-sentenced-child-sexual-abuse-1922463
https://www.masslive.com/news/2024/07/ice-arrests-ecuadoran-man-wanted-on-child-rape-charge-in-northampton.html
https://www-origo-hu.translate.goog/888/2024/07/illegalis-migrans-gyerek-eroszak
I just looked, and it's all the same guy, the same arrest, and the same background, albeit with an emphasis on "OMG ILLEGAL" from the right-biased sites.
I'm sure that given the nature of the site, it sometimes makes mistakes, but this doesn't look like one of them.
https://www.newsweek.com/honduran-illegal-immigrant-sentenced-child-sexual-abuse-1922463
https://www.masslive.com/news/2024/07/ice-arrests-ecuadoran-man-wanted-on-child-rape-charge-in-northampton.html
https://www-origo-hu.translate.goog/888/2024/07/illegalis-migrans-gyerek-eroszak
I'm seeing a different list of stories when I follow your link. It may be an A/B sort of thing.
Aww that makes me sad it isn’t at least highly factually only because of the questionable news sources that are included on a story
Looks like that's just a side-effect of the nature of the site. Since it's necessarily going to end up carrying versions of a story from pretty much anyone, that will sadly include questionable sources like Fox.
Honestly, I think it's a great idea. I'm bookmarking the site.
It's a secret news aggregator that only us lazy boys without sponsor block enabled on YouTube know about.
It attempts to offer both sides of a story. However, it more often offers both extreme or underreported sides of the story using lower-level websites (sometimes local newspapers putting commentary on top of national paper reports). It's okay for finding stories but I still use reputable news outlets for obtaining facts.
The majority of the sites it's showing have the absolute worst popups and ads and autoloading videos with no ability to use an adblocker or even open an article outside it's built in browser.
I assume it's primarily a data harvesting app.
Most importantly, IT IS NOT A SOURCE and should be banned from Lemmy.
Here is the source of the OP https://hosted.ap.org/standardspeaker/article/7e2ee1216e35891600737ce20cdc7d2d/white-house-faces-many-questions-about-bidens-health-and
It's an aggregator, it puts all the links to all the sources in one spot to save time searching. Aggregators are fine.
I could not disagree more with everything you have said.
It's an advertising portal disguised as an aggregator. It promotes articles that are the most click / rage baity to maintain your engagement. It is not a source of journalism. Linking to the general headline it "aggregates" is not proving source. It should be banned from this platform. If the quality of the content they aggregated was reasonable, I would have a slightly more forgiving opinion.
Edit: For instance, while it does include AP as one of the sources, even though it is the actual ONLY source for this report, it's the eleventh article linked on the page; with the first link going to a right-leaning website based Argentina.
Edit 2: They also evidently "aggregate" using an algorithm which can be wrong. There are at least two different stories found here about a migrant raping a minor. One is about an Ecuadorian and the other is about a Honduran. The first link from a right-leaning Hungarian language site, doesn't appear to be about either of these separate instances.
I think even poor sources should be included in an automated aggregator like this. It's not trying to feed us any form of the truth. It's showing us everything that is out there, from the blatant propaganda to the respectable journalism, and everything in between.
I do not use ground news to find out the truth. I use it to see what is being said. All of what is being said. I have my own methods for determining factuality, I don't want a bot to do it for me.
See my last edit.
Again, I don't want a bot to determine what is or is not true. I want it to collect everything people are saying and put it all in one spot. Are some people somewhere publishing something on the topic, true or false? Sometimes I want to see it.
I want to know what everyone's stance is, everyone's messaging, even everyone's lies, all in one convenient spot.
Look at it as a propaganda monitoring service if you prefer, that happens to include genuine journalism as well, since it cannot tell the difference.
Wanting a bot to promote verifiably false information is fucked up. Wanting a bot to conflate multiple separate stories into one narrative is fucked up.
You and I may be fine with easily observing falsities but it has become readily apparent over the past 20+ years that literal fake news is having a measurable and long term impact on our society and planet. I fully agree that having access to multiple perspectives is fantastic and we should all want that. The issue is that this particular platform goes well beyond that.
Most humans are not intelligent enough to understand what they're reading even when they are told what they're reading is inaccurate https://lemmy.ml/post/17790884/12168067