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.
You might want to get a CC that offers complimentary subs to
https://www.ft.com/content/1cc912c0-7abe-49fb-b04a-d41477a1c...
(Recall that they retained that not-Orange(-Panther) bg as a nod to its affordabilitarian roots
https://www.creativebrief.com/bite/fuel-your-imagination/fin... )
Thanks for the suggestion.
No idea what you mean though lol.
His job is to help me look sane, I think!
FT is #f2dfce (because Cornwall Clay, because unbleached paper was cheap)
It's #f6f6ef here.
Funny how the more R there is in a lang=en medium the more right wing it radiates, defiant of R's traditional associations
Yes. That seems to be exactly how much HN is right of FT
(Economist. R. Guardian. B. NYT: #xxxxxx nominally, but right of FT "editorially". Etc. Fb, Yt are intentionally deceptive? Techcrunch: the favourite colour of boomer relative who's "interested in tech"
Gentlemen, is there any chance you could give me any clear feedback?
I've been staring at this thing for 6 months and the only people who have seen it are friends and family. Even if you think it trash just please tell me lol.
Sorry! That was a schizo way of saying that your colour scheme is worldclass. And unbaised. Maybe you meant "unbiased" and was not implying "unbased"? The satire is not clear
You might want to repost specifically on font choice, to get the many expert opinions. It seems a bit haphazard to my lay vision.
Also.. you need interesting news, first and foremost. Maybe steal some from reddit. It's biased though. Your "AI" could clean it? Or how about Financial Times
Thanks for taking the time to look at it.
I'll go build an attention algo to shove high velocity news down the pipeline so its the same as every other news source.
[dead]