So I find the way Ground News is framed to be a little offputting, like this idea that if you blend left wing drivel with right wing drivel you will find the truth somehow and I just don't believe it.
And it's weird, like I am a big fan of The Economist which I see as a center right magazine that was founded by partisans who believed in free trade back in 1843 who were advocating against the Corn Law. It is even trans-skeptical but somehow gets pigeonholed as a center left magazine on most lists because people further to the right have built a whole alternative media universe over my lifetime.
I think the most depressing thing about The New York Times is that the editorial page, which is basically people like Charlie Blow blowing it out their ass, gets the lion share of the clicks. People would rather hear their own version of "the king is still on the throne, the pound is still worth a pound" rather than hear about something some people they've never heard about did in some place that they've never heard about that's about a long term trend that they're not aware of and probably wouldn't believe if someone told them -- but will reshape the world in the next 30 years.
The great thing about The New York Times is that they send out young underpaid reporters to work on those kind of things -- but the readers could care less. If I had to point to one difficult problem it is the pernicious backpressure from the readers!
Did you know that the news industry had a chance to implement personalized news on electronic networks by 1980 and turned it down? This book tells the rest of the story:
Yea I have a problem with the framing of Ground as well. I don't like the idea of someone deciding what the bias is for me. i feel like even left leaning and right leaning outlets can produce solid articles sometimes.
The goal of this project is to cut through those narrative filters and provide the aggregated facts of the story for people who just want to be informed without the burden of wading through editorialization.
So I find the way Ground News is framed to be a little offputting, like this idea that if you blend left wing drivel with right wing drivel you will find the truth somehow and I just don't believe it.
And it's weird, like I am a big fan of The Economist which I see as a center right magazine that was founded by partisans who believed in free trade back in 1843 who were advocating against the Corn Law. It is even trans-skeptical but somehow gets pigeonholed as a center left magazine on most lists because people further to the right have built a whole alternative media universe over my lifetime.
I think the most depressing thing about The New York Times is that the editorial page, which is basically people like Charlie Blow blowing it out their ass, gets the lion share of the clicks. People would rather hear their own version of "the king is still on the throne, the pound is still worth a pound" rather than hear about something some people they've never heard about did in some place that they've never heard about that's about a long term trend that they're not aware of and probably wouldn't believe if someone told them -- but will reshape the world in the next 30 years.
The great thing about The New York Times is that they send out young underpaid reporters to work on those kind of things -- but the readers could care less. If I had to point to one difficult problem it is the pernicious backpressure from the readers!
Did you know that the news industry had a chance to implement personalized news on electronic networks by 1980 and turned it down? This book tells the rest of the story:
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Machines-Their-Impact-Med...
Yea I have a problem with the framing of Ground as well. I don't like the idea of someone deciding what the bias is for me. i feel like even left leaning and right leaning outlets can produce solid articles sometimes.
The goal of this project is to cut through those narrative filters and provide the aggregated facts of the story for people who just want to be informed without the burden of wading through editorialization.
Will peep the book.