Does anyone use Ground News?

I wouldn't admit if I were a ground news reader! Who wants to hear their food's been prechewed? I don't trust any digest operator, in the long run. Their advertising suggests I have blind spots in my reading because I'm not listening to my ideological enemies' reporting? How rude.

Yes, edit, more on topic -- if you're trying to stay current and meaningful, you should restrict your reading away from big services that would ever send you notifications. Trust your in-person world to inform you of anything worth hearing about, and use your news-time and attention for the specific voices whose writing you recognize from your own. There is absolutely no large outlet news source worth your taking an interruption at home, in my opinion!

Nope. And to explain part of the reason why, here's a comment I made about Ground News from last time someone mentioned it:

The one thing to keep in mind with Ground News is that it uses Ad Fontes, AllSides, and MediaBiasFactCheck to determine the lean of every news org. But those three are all American media ratings companies, and so they're a bit biased themselves, IMO... I suspect due to the Overton window in the US having gradually moved so far to the right. So while they may be relatively accurate for rating the lean of news orgs from an American's perspective, they're not all that accurate for rating the lean of those same news orgs for anyone living outside the US.

E.g. They rate the majority of mainstream Canadian news sources as "Left leaning" or outright "Left" despite most of them (like CTV, CityTV, CBC) being considered largely "Centrist" media by Canadian standards. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, Ad Fontes rates the National Post as "Centrist", which is hilariously inaccurate. AllSides and MBFC at least have National Post as "Leans Right" but even that is not entirely accurate, IMO. National Post are basically the Fox News of Canada, and 100% openly, unashamedly, full-on Right wing, and even regularly cross into "Far Right" territory when it comes to their op-eds in particular.

And I think arch's reply to that comment is also worth pointing out:

MediaFactBiasCheck has to say about the Associated Press. I personally don't find the analysis to be trustworthy based on this alone.

Overall, we rate the Associated Press as left-centered biased due to left-leaning editorializing of news stories and frequently conducting fact checks on conservatives. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a reasonable fact-check record.

Fact checking a conservative is a form of bias? I would argue the opposite, that not fact checking them is a form of bias. If they wanted to argue they don't fact check liberals as a form of bias that would be a valid logical argument at least.

I'm interested in this as well. The concept seems great, and I've seen this advertised by a bunch of "content creators" I generally consider trustworthy, but I'm always hesitent to spend money based solely on sponsored content.

Ground News is good to know of things, as in headlines, but not great for in depth reading. I gave it a try for about a month. Honestly, I would encourage you to look into RSS Readers. I have feeds from everyone I wish except the AP who sadly ended their RSS support.

I use it mainly because it has a good mix of national, international, and local news. Other aggregators like Kagi News don't have anything local. Though I also browse Google News and News Minimalist.

I pretty much ignore the "bias" meter though. Basically all Canadian sources are labeled left wing, which is nonsense. This false sort of forced "balance" is not helpful when the right wing is consistently wrong about everything.

Also there's no need to install an app or allow notifications, just use your browser.

I don't use Ground News myself - I prefer to just pick my sources and email subscriptions - but I have a friend who swears by it as a great way to get sources.

For a more bite-sized form of kind of the same idea, I've enjoyed kagi news - it's sanitized summaries of what they estimate as the day's top stories. Here's the introductory blog post if you missed it when it was posted to tildes.

I used to use ground news but it became a bit much. It was a lot if reading on top of my uni work. Also you really have to give a damn about the framing of an issue to get the benefit of seeing it from both sides. These days I'll just look at 3 big news sources that I know have opposite biases and take it from there.

Also I noticed a lot of stories just came from associated press so I guess just read them.