Ground News and bias assessments

When Ground News shows that an article has a low percentage of left or right bias coverage, it means that very few news outlets from that side of the political spectrum have reported on the story. For example, if a story has only 10% left-leaning coverage, it suggests that most left-leaning sources are not covering it, while right-leaning or centrist outlets might be.

This can signal a few things:

• The story may resonate more with one side’s audience, so the other side doesn’t prioritize it.

• It might be a “blind spot”—a story that’s being underreported by one side, possibly because it challenges their typical narratives.

• Or it could simply reflect editorial choices or timing differences in coverage.

Ground News uses a tool called the Bias Bar to visualize this. It shows the percentage of sources covering a story from the left (blue), center (white), and right (red), helping users spot imbalances and explore why certain stories get more traction on one side than the other.

A good example of low-bias coverage on Ground News would be a story where the majority of reporting comes from centrist outlets, with minimal engagement from either left- or right-leaning sources. These stories often focus on nonpartisan topics, such as scientific discoveries, natural disasters, or international events, that don’t strongly align with domestic political narratives.

For instance, a report on a volcanic eruption in Iceland or a breakthrough in Alzheimer’s research might show up with 80–90% of coverage from center-rated outlets, and only a small percentage from left or right sources. That distribution suggests the story is being treated more as a factual event than a politically charged issue.

Ground News visualizes this with their Bias Bar, where you can see the percentage of coverage from each side. 

In politics, low-bias coverage on Ground News typically means that a political story is being reported mostly by centrist outlets, with minimal attention from either left- or right-leaning sources. This can happen for a few reasons:

1. Neutral framing: The story might be presented in a way that avoids partisan angles—focusing on facts rather than ideological interpretations.

2. Low political salience: It could be a political development that doesn’t strongly benefit or threaten either side’s narrative, so partisan outlets don’t prioritize it.

3. Emerging or under-the-radar issues: Sometimes, a story hasn’t yet been picked up by major partisan outlets, so early coverage skews toward more neutral reporting.

For example, a bipartisan infrastructure bill that quietly passes with broad support might receive mostly center-rated coverage, while more polarizing issues—like immigration policy or Supreme Court rulings—tend to attract highly skewed coverage from one side or the other.

Ground News uses this kind of distribution to help readers spot media blindspots—stories that one side of the spectrum may be ignoring. It’s a useful way to identify what’s being emphasized or downplayed across the political landscape.

NOTE: This post was created with the help of Microsoft Copilot, an AI bot.