How does Ground News aggregate and score media bias compared to other tools?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ground News aggregates bias by importing third‑party ratings from AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check, then averaging or combining those external labels into its Bias Bar and outlet ratings; factuality/fact reliability scores come from Ad Fontes and Media Bias/Fact Check [1] [2] [3]. Critics note Ground News pays for some rating services and repackages their work rather than producing original bias research, a practice reported by Columbia Journalism Review [4].
1. How Ground News builds its bias picture: a mosaic of external ratings
Ground News does not claim to generate bias ratings from scratch; it builds its Bias Bar and outlet labels by referencing independent monitoring organizations — explicitly AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias/Fact Check — and using their published leanings and factuality assessments to create a composite view that shows how coverage of a story is distributed across left, center and right [2] [3] [5]. The site’s Bias Bar highlights which side of the spectrum is disproportionately covering a story rather than asserting article‑level ideological intent [5].
2. Method: averaging and labeled inputs, plus factuality from two partners
Ground News’s “rating system” page describes its factuality score as reflecting the average of Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check ratings, with outlets evaluated on use of credible sources, timeliness of corrections and contextual reporting; bias labels referenced come from the three monitoring organizations [1] [3]. Ground News applies these outlet‑level assessments across its 50,000+ source index and surfaces them in features like My News Bias, the Bias Bar, and a browser extension that flags how other outlets cover the same story [6] [7].
3. What Ground News emphasizes and what it doesn’t
The platform emphasizes cross‑source comparison and “blindspot” discovery — showing stories ignored by one side of the spectrum — and visually flags coverage imbalance rather than claiming article‑level neutrality judgments [8] [5]. Ground News states its bias ratings are applied at the publication level and do not measure the bias of individual articles, and its factuality scores are outlet‑level summaries [1] [7].
4. How this compares to other tools (based on cited partners and critique)
Unlike services that publish methodologies built from original, in‑house blind surveys or article‑level coding, Ground News is essentially an aggregator of third‑party monitoring organizations’ work: it imports AllSides, Ad Fontes and Media Bias/Fact Check ratings and presents them visually and in averages [2] [3]. Columbia Journalism Review’s reporting highlights that Ground News pays for ratings and “tags on” bias labels and factuality scores rather than conducting its own independent rating process, a critique that frames Ground News as repackaging existing research [4]. In contrast, organizations like Ad Fontes historically used panels of human raters and article coding methods — specifics of which are discussed in CJR’s account of Ad Fontes and MBFC’s own approaches [4].
5. Strengths: practicality, scale and comparison tools
Ground News’s strength is product design: it aggregates ratings across tens of thousands of outlets, displays a Bias Bar to reveal coverage distribution quickly, offers a browser extension that surfaces alternative coverage, and produces features (Blindspot, My News Bias) that encourage lateral reading and broader source sampling [6] [8] [9]. Reviews praise its utility for spotting coverage blindspots and juxtaposing multiple perspectives [9].
6. Limitations, conflicts of interest, and open questions
Ground News relies on external ratings and averages, which means its outputs inherit any methodological limits or disagreements in those sources; it does not produce article‑level bias assessments [1] [3]. CJR reports that Ground News pays for some ratings and declined to disclose business arrangements, a potential conflict that readers should factor into assessments of independence [4]. Available sources do not mention whether Ground News reweights disagreeing partner ratings, how it handles sources absent from one partner’s database, or whether it audits partner ratings internally — those details are not found in current reporting [2] [3] [4].
7. What readers should take away
Use Ground News as a comparative tool to spot which side of the political spectrum is driving coverage of a story and to discover overlooked angles, but remember it compiles and averages external bias and factuality labels rather than producing original article‑level analysis [5] [1] [3]. Readers wanting a methodological deep dive should consult the original rating organizations (AllSides, Ad Fontes, Media Bias/Fact Check) and note the CJR critique about paid relationships when weighing Ground News’s claims of impartiality [4] [2].