This is partly why I don’t trust Ground News. They’re putting way too much money into advertising for me to believe they’re genuinely interested in providing an unbiased factual categorization of news sources.
I also simply don’t believe it’s possible to be unbiased, so anyone claiming to be is immediately suspect to me.
They also reinforce seeing liberal and conservative as opposites. The only good service they have is showing who sponsors which sources. However, the whole “blindspot” system seems designed as a both-sidesism
Exactly! It’s really disheartening to me to see so many youtubers who are otherwise insightful be so uncritically supportive of Ground News because they “like what they’re trying to do.”
This is partly why I don’t trust Ground News. They’re putting way too much money into advertising for me to believe they’re genuinely interested in providing an unbiased factual categorization of news sources.
I also simply don’t believe it’s possible to be unbiased, so anyone claiming to be is immediately suspect to me.
They also reinforce seeing liberal and conservative as opposites. The only good service they have is showing who sponsors which sources. However, the whole “blindspot” system seems designed as a both-sidesism
Exactly! It’s really disheartening to me to see so many youtubers who are otherwise insightful be so uncritically supportive of Ground News because they “like what they’re trying to do.”
Usually they’re science channels who just don’t know any better. They’re still too trusting of the system