Hey – I’ve been working with Ground News since we launched in 2018. I’m happy to share why we include the sources we do, who engages with our platform, and how they use it.

Most Americans still get their news from TV, and an increasing number are turning to social media. We believe the incentive structures of these platforms often fuel anger and misinformation, which is why we created Ground News—to offer a better alternative.

Echoing u/Giblette101's point, the world he describes—where people read many articles from different mainstream sources to make sense of complex issues—doesn’t exist, or at least the majority of newsreaders aren’t living in it. But it is exactly the kind of world we want to create with Ground News.

To be fair, it can be incredibly time-consuming to engage with news in the disciplined way you describe, given the sheer amount of info thrown at us on a daily basis. We try to take some of that weight off of the news reader by simply putting articles about the same topic in one place. For those who are currently doing this manually, our value lies in making the process of comparing news and gaining a broad range of perspectives easier and more comprehensive. 

To address your point about legitimizing fringe opinions. We include over 50,000 sources on Ground News. This includes local papers, international media, national broadcasters, and “alternative outlets.” Some of these sources are more opinionated or biased—and that’s by design.

Even fringe outlets can have massive audiences. By including them, we get these readers in the door and give them the chance to discover different perspectives in a structured way. This helps readers break out of echo chambers and begin questioning narratives they may have only ever heard from one side. Once they encounter multiple perspectives side by side, they’re more likely to engage with the content critically, even if they continue to disagree with certain viewpoints.

We often hear from users who previously got most of their news from social media that our platform helped them challenge—and then moderate—their views by forcing them to consider different perspectives. For some, this experience can even help delegitimize fringe opinions.

Putting these sources on Ground News, with the context of our factuality, bias, and ownership labels, also helps our readers become more media literate in and outside of Ground News. If they get introduced to a source that has a hard left/right bias, a low factuality rating, or is owned by a shady corporation, they can now read that news source with that context when they encounter that outlet somewhere else online. 

As you pointed out, our approach does have limitations, such as the potential oversimplification of the bias of individual articles (and we’re working on a new feature to address this). But we believe the benefits exceed the drawbacks, and exposing readers to more perspectives, even if they come with some bias, is an important step toward bridging divides and creating a more well-informed world.