[CliffFletcher]

I get what they’re trying to do. The idea has merit - media outlets today are largely funded by subscriptions, so they’re incentivized to tell their audience what they want to hear. Sources that present factually correct content can differ dramatically in how they frame that content. For example, the Guardian and the National Post typically frame the same story in very different ways by omitting context that doesn’t accord with their preferred narrative. So you’re going to get a much clearer picture of an issue from three or four sources than from one.

I just don’t know that there’s much of an audience for the service they’re providing. It doesn’t give you access to the content itself that’s behind a paywall. So sure, I guess it’s worth comparing the headline the Globe and Mail has in its story about the digital services tax being scrapped with other outlets. But you can’t read the story itself unless you also have a subscription to the G&M. And you can already get free insights about bias from the media compass sites out there.

Ground News does offer a lot more than just a bias compass. But I don’t see many people outside of communications professionals, academics, and political strategists paying for the service.