Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Examples of rejected user-submitted sources on Ground News?
Executive summary
Ground News invites users to submit news outlets for inclusion but keeps control of which sources appear on the platform; its help pages describe the submission process and vetting but do not publish a public list of specifically rejected user-submitted sources. Available Ground News documentation explains how to submit a source and that all submissions are vetted for accuracy and paywall/access issues, but the company’s public materials do not enumerate examples of user submissions that were declined (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3].
1. How Ground News says submissions work — a user-driven gateway, not an open door
Ground News’ Help Center lays out a formal process for adding outlets: users can suggest publications through the app or the website by sending the outlet name and URL; the Ground News team then “takes it from there” and reviews requests before adding a source to the platform [1]. The company frames this as part of an effort to expand coverage and maintain “diverse and reputable sources” while checking “publicly available information on the publication and its history of accurate journalism” before approval [2]. Ground News explicitly states it vets submissions and that outreach from a news organization will be processed by their team [1] [2].
2. What Ground News’ public materials reveal about rejections — procedural language, not examples
While Ground News’ FAQ and help pages repeatedly emphasize vetting and selection criteria, those pages do not provide concrete examples of outlets that were rejected after user submission; instead, they describe the review steps and signal that some sources (for instance, paywalled content) may present limitations for users but are handled differently rather than being listed as banned [3] [2]. There is clear procedural language about vetting and paywall limitations, but no public catalogue of declined submissions in the Help Center or FAQ [3] [1].
3. Why companies often avoid publishing rejection lists — plausible editorial and legal reasons
Ground News’ documentation emphasizes careful checks on accuracy and reputation, which helps explain why the company might avoid a public roll call of rejections: naming specific outlets could raise defamation or contractual concerns and would require explaining nuanced editorial judgments. The materials provided show Ground News uses bias and factuality ratings and partners with third-party raters, indicating decisions can be complex and context-dependent, and the company prefers to communicate case-by-case through its feedback channels rather than publish blanket rejection lists [4] [5]. Ground News’ reliance on third-party bias/factuality metrics and its promise to vet “accuracy of facts” support why rejection decisions are likely internal and situational [4] [2].
4. Paywalls and access — a specific, documented limitation that affects inclusion and visibility
One concrete constraint the help pages do document is paywalls: Ground News warns that paywalled external sources may be inaccessible to users without subscriptions and that these paywalls “are not placed by Ground News, and we cannot remove them” [3]. This operational reality does not equal a rejection but does affect how useful a submitted source will be to users and may influence whether the platform prioritizes adding or surfacing it. Ground News explicitly notes paywalled content can limit user access even if the source is included on the platform [3].
5. What’s missing in public reporting — requests, refusals, and transparency metrics
Available Ground News pages explain the mechanism to suggest sources and emphasize editorial vetting, but they do not disclose statistics on acceptance rates, reasons for denial, or named examples of rejected user submissions; those details are absent from the public Help Center and FAQ [1] [2]. If you’re seeking examples of rejected sources, the current public materials direct users to contact Ground News’ team (feedback@ground.news) or use in-app support rather than consulting a searchable rejection archive [1]. The absence of such a list means claims about specific rejected outlets cannot be confirmed from these pages [1] [2].
6. How to pursue clarity — practical steps grounded in the company’s own guidance
Given Ground News’ stated process, the only documented route to learn about the fate of a particular submission is to follow the company’s feedback channels; the Help Center advises users to contact the team for unresolved issues and indicates that feedback on Help Center articles may not receive a response, pointing requesters toward direct email for substantive questions [1] [6]. For researchers or users seeking named examples of rejected submissions, the platform’s own guidance implies a direct inquiry to feedback@ground.news is the appropriate step, because the public documentation does not supply that information [1] [6].
Conclusion: Ground News’ public materials make clear they accept and vet user-submitted sources and note operational constraints like paywalls, but those materials do not list rejected submissions or provide rejection examples. To obtain named cases or a rationale for a particular denial, the company’s help pages direct users to make a direct inquiry; available public documentation does not provide the rejected-source examples you asked for [1] [3] [2].