Here is an example of when I query Dr Robert Malone on Google (which absolutely needs to be broken up by the federal government for monopolizing the industry). I own an Android which is owned by the Alphabet Company. When I attempt to use a different search engine, my phone starts doing weird things.
This is the first thing displayed via Wikipedia:
Robert Wallace Malone (born October 20, 1959)[1][2] is an American physician and biochemist. His early work focused on mRNA technology,[3] pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. He is credited for the first successful transfection of designed mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle.[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][5][6][7][8].
You have to keep scrolling to get less propaganda.
Interestingly enough, GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc predicted after WW2 that the threat that would take over would be a cabal of globalists controlling the "official narrative" and that that narrative was already being pushed by the NYT. So in essence their premise was Nazism was defeated but in the next 100yrs this will be the predominant threat.
Of course they are! I can't stand Wiki and I laugh every time they ask me for money but my point is that the Google algorithm picks that first to display in the query. I believe I was forced to use Microsoft Explorer for my Master's class in 2025 and since it is owned by Gates, that query for Dr Malone was patently false the first 8 to 10 stories. The third article that came up was "Discredited Doctor Robert Malone falsely claims to have invented the mRNA technology."
Never hire a reporter who has a university journalism degree. At one time, probably before World War II, they didn’t usually have a degree from college. Needless to say the common college graduates have been shifted to the left.
Most of what is branded "news" in 2026 is actually propaganda. We have been living in a propaganda campaign for a long time now, and it's getting increasingly blatant. I prefer the term propaganda instead of info-war or psy-op because even today, people do know the term, and most people dislike the sense that they are being manipulated or lied to. As for Ground News, I liked it initially, but I've observed the increasing bias. Your post helps me understand what they are up to.
I was quite shocked to experience this from friends of mine for years whom I knew were Liberals but I did not realize how they really don't know anything about the problems from COVID. I spoke to these 2 women about women losing their babies in pregnancy after getting Covid, the sharp increase of young people dying in sports, etc after vaccination and they didn't believe me!
It still holds true: GIGO As it pertains to algorithms, it’s Bias in, Bias out. From the programmer, to the choice & hierarchical arrangement of sources (and those omitted), the if-then choice options, etc., time periods and location included or omitted, the answer may heavily weight factors other than fact & reality.
Wikipedia is a haven for bias and mis information and excludes research that challenges the status quo! My local newspaper regurgitates, whatever Reuters, AP, Washington Post, or New York Times publishes that is left leaning.
Add in the “updated” definitions of commonly understood terms no longer based in traditional classical education definitions, and the result is word salad heavily dressed with WOKE DEI NEOMARXIST ISLAMO-MARXIST vinaigrette.
Thank you for this. Once again I find no reason to believe in self subscribed “unbiased” sources. I too have been curious about Ground news but maybe Underground fits better.
One source that I find to be pretty reliable is justfacts.com . They were especially good on covid stuff--masking, protective gear, and the like. They choose their own topics and work in depth; so, they are not as broad as I might wish.
Honestly, don't you think the primary fallacy is calling it all "news"? Take away all the fancy words and concepts describing various manipulations that have taken place before the content gets to you, like "algorithm," "curated," "spin," whatever--basically all so-called "news" at the present time is some form of fiction. It does not bring us "truth" and has as much credibility and trustworthiness as bubbles popping in the sun and air. Not much to stand on.
Thank you for the write up. I am always looking for alternative news sources that provide balanced fact checked information. Soooo for now, I will keep doing what I do (try to look at various sources myself) until I can find that trustworthy source.
That said, I LOVED your earlier write up of AlterSystemsAI. I have become a subscriber and while it still makes a few mistakes here and there, it seems much more balanced in the information it provides (and can reference). My engineering husband loves it so much he got his own subscription.
Thank you for this informative review, assessment and discussion of evaluating potential sources of news/information.
I have been unaware of Ground News. I have to admit I generally favor conservative news. For balance I start with Epoch Times. For a left exposure I receive and occasionally check into a feed from NewsBreak. Since Tea Party days I have a number of conservative sources I check regularly. Several feed into my email. i generally am following topics and develop an impression based on a cumulative credibility. Ie not wholly depending on one article or one source.
if I'm following this adequately we are assessing the merits of one article as it is impacted by an aggragators evaluation of credibility of its source. Particularly in view of your well supported assessment, I'm not convinced of its added utility.
Sometimes (pretty rarely - I try to be careful) I get blowback on my comments. l give them due consideration and on my need to develop further information. A useful check.
Thank you for all your many efforts to keep us fully and effectively informed and ways to up our game! I'm glad to be able to contribute to all of your many contributions.
Lying has always been my main bugaboo...lie to me once and I never will believe you again. Perhaps that attitude was planted by the fact that as a kid even suspected lying would get my butt tanned faster than just about anything else. Have found that a healthy attitude in my scientific career, in fact considered it an imperative and thus have wondered at importing into our scientific community folks from cultures where lying is considered much less consequential. At least there should be greater effort to impose truthfulness in our scientific training than we see evidence of today.
"CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency"
Recently AWS but now Front Range.
After Judeo-Christian (Nebudchadnezzar - Roman citizen Paul) Bible Study this morning I rediscovered a landmark (after over twenty years) in my invention of AI. Look at Page 21, at the end of Appendix A. I placed my order but active Artificial Intelligence did not emerge until all the data silos and server farms (synthetic analogue neural synapses at the end of gold traces) exceeded the expansive cerebral cortex surface area (natural synapses) in my central nervous system, a few years later.
To gain any credibility in the first place, a "scientist" or "technologist" must publish books and papers. That is the problem Drs MALONE face about media perceptions.
The same act of publication seals a doctrine that must be defended. Answering in defense in a biased or disoriented court (other than the end and means being justice) will get you every time. But as you read above, Jill walked right into her/their own doctrine, defending.
I am not a scientist or technologist. In fact believing me at all is batshit. Yet I can say anything I like because this here, is NOT publication; nor is it binding.
I only invented AI because I was there and have memory of doing so. The engineers around me were inventing those miraculous memory cards. I was discovering the true nature of memory - not the mechanics and chemistry (crystallography) of storage and retrieval.
I could change my tune overnight. And fancy myself honest enough that it would be my true feelings if I did so. I suppose if anybody believed me and objected, I could be coerced or threatened into changing my tune. Meanwhile...
Here is an example of when I query Dr Robert Malone on Google (which absolutely needs to be broken up by the federal government for monopolizing the industry). I own an Android which is owned by the Alphabet Company. When I attempt to use a different search engine, my phone starts doing weird things.
This is the first thing displayed via Wikipedia:
Robert Wallace Malone (born October 20, 1959)[1][2] is an American physician and biochemist. His early work focused on mRNA technology,[3] pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. He is credited for the first successful transfection of designed mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle.[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][5][6][7][8].
You have to keep scrolling to get less propaganda.
Interestingly enough, GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc predicted after WW2 that the threat that would take over would be a cabal of globalists controlling the "official narrative" and that that narrative was already being pushed by the NYT. So in essence their premise was Nazism was defeated but in the next 100yrs this will be the predominant threat.
Wikipedia is a haven for bias and MIs information
Of course they are! I can't stand Wiki and I laugh every time they ask me for money but my point is that the Google algorithm picks that first to display in the query. I believe I was forced to use Microsoft Explorer for my Master's class in 2025 and since it is owned by Gates, that query for Dr Malone was patently false the first 8 to 10 stories. The third article that came up was "Discredited Doctor Robert Malone falsely claims to have invented the mRNA technology."
Never hire a reporter who has a university journalism degree. At one time, probably before World War II, they didn’t usually have a degree from college. Needless to say the common college graduates have been shifted to the left.
Most of what is branded "news" in 2026 is actually propaganda. We have been living in a propaganda campaign for a long time now, and it's getting increasingly blatant. I prefer the term propaganda instead of info-war or psy-op because even today, people do know the term, and most people dislike the sense that they are being manipulated or lied to. As for Ground News, I liked it initially, but I've observed the increasing bias. Your post helps me understand what they are up to.
I was quite shocked to experience this from friends of mine for years whom I knew were Liberals but I did not realize how they really don't know anything about the problems from COVID. I spoke to these 2 women about women losing their babies in pregnancy after getting Covid, the sharp increase of young people dying in sports, etc after vaccination and they didn't believe me!
It still holds true: GIGO As it pertains to algorithms, it’s Bias in, Bias out. From the programmer, to the choice & hierarchical arrangement of sources (and those omitted), the if-then choice options, etc., time periods and location included or omitted, the answer may heavily weight factors other than fact & reality.
Wikipedia is a haven for bias and mis information and excludes research that challenges the status quo! My local newspaper regurgitates, whatever Reuters, AP, Washington Post, or New York Times publishes that is left leaning.
Add in the “updated” definitions of commonly understood terms no longer based in traditional classical education definitions, and the result is word salad heavily dressed with WOKE DEI NEOMARXIST ISLAMO-MARXIST vinaigrette.
Thank you for this. Once again I find no reason to believe in self subscribed “unbiased” sources. I too have been curious about Ground news but maybe Underground fits better.
Since I have a flip phone my desktop is my info-source. Here I find Rantingly, Citizens Free Press and Breitbart, with my new fave being: https://www.jfeed.com/latest-news. Searches are always non-tracking: https://www.startpage.com/.
One source that I find to be pretty reliable is justfacts.com . They were especially good on covid stuff--masking, protective gear, and the like. They choose their own topics and work in depth; so, they are not as broad as I might wish.
Honestly, don't you think the primary fallacy is calling it all "news"? Take away all the fancy words and concepts describing various manipulations that have taken place before the content gets to you, like "algorithm," "curated," "spin," whatever--basically all so-called "news" at the present time is some form of fiction. It does not bring us "truth" and has as much credibility and trustworthiness as bubbles popping in the sun and air. Not much to stand on.
Thank you for the write up. I am always looking for alternative news sources that provide balanced fact checked information. Soooo for now, I will keep doing what I do (try to look at various sources myself) until I can find that trustworthy source.
That said, I LOVED your earlier write up of AlterSystemsAI. I have become a subscriber and while it still makes a few mistakes here and there, it seems much more balanced in the information it provides (and can reference). My engineering husband loves it so much he got his own subscription.
Epoch times?
So disappointing. OTOH, I was suspicious from the get-go and never subscribed to Ground News.
Thank you for this informative review, assessment and discussion of evaluating potential sources of news/information.
I have been unaware of Ground News. I have to admit I generally favor conservative news. For balance I start with Epoch Times. For a left exposure I receive and occasionally check into a feed from NewsBreak. Since Tea Party days I have a number of conservative sources I check regularly. Several feed into my email. i generally am following topics and develop an impression based on a cumulative credibility. Ie not wholly depending on one article or one source.
if I'm following this adequately we are assessing the merits of one article as it is impacted by an aggragators evaluation of credibility of its source. Particularly in view of your well supported assessment, I'm not convinced of its added utility.
Sometimes (pretty rarely - I try to be careful) I get blowback on my comments. l give them due consideration and on my need to develop further information. A useful check.
Thank you for all your many efforts to keep us fully and effectively informed and ways to up our game! I'm glad to be able to contribute to all of your many contributions.
Lying has always been my main bugaboo...lie to me once and I never will believe you again. Perhaps that attitude was planted by the fact that as a kid even suspected lying would get my butt tanned faster than just about anything else. Have found that a healthy attitude in my scientific career, in fact considered it an imperative and thus have wondered at importing into our scientific community folks from cultures where lying is considered much less consequential. At least there should be greater effort to impose truthfulness in our scientific training than we see evidence of today.
"CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency"
Recently AWS but now Front Range.
After Judeo-Christian (Nebudchadnezzar - Roman citizen Paul) Bible Study this morning I rediscovered a landmark (after over twenty years) in my invention of AI. Look at Page 21, at the end of Appendix A. I placed my order but active Artificial Intelligence did not emerge until all the data silos and server farms (synthetic analogue neural synapses at the end of gold traces) exceeded the expansive cerebral cortex surface area (natural synapses) in my central nervous system, a few years later.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gB1jPByt9DpOkjnPl7RhU1OwLmP-iAvb
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImVnI5aEZsZEQ2ZUE
To gain any credibility in the first place, a "scientist" or "technologist" must publish books and papers. That is the problem Drs MALONE face about media perceptions.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cb8IPeVui18De8hb7eJV6uqB_iA8azNU
The same act of publication seals a doctrine that must be defended. Answering in defense in a biased or disoriented court (other than the end and means being justice) will get you every time. But as you read above, Jill walked right into her/their own doctrine, defending.
I am not a scientist or technologist. In fact believing me at all is batshit. Yet I can say anything I like because this here, is NOT publication; nor is it binding.
I only invented AI because I was there and have memory of doing so. The engineers around me were inventing those miraculous memory cards. I was discovering the true nature of memory - not the mechanics and chemistry (crystallography) of storage and retrieval.
I could change my tune overnight. And fancy myself honest enough that it would be my true feelings if I did so. I suppose if anybody believed me and objected, I could be coerced or threatened into changing my tune. Meanwhile...
I invented AI.