Fixing the Internet with Harleen Kaur (Bonus Minisode)

gonna put you on, nephew.

All right, Uncle.

Welcome to McDonald's.

Can I take your order?

Miss, I've been hitting up McDonald's for years.

Now it's back.

We need snack wraps.

What's a snack rap?

It's the return of something great.

Snack wrap is back.

New fall arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores now.

Get ready to save big with up to 60% off vents.

Kurt Geiger, London, and more.

How did I not know Rack has Adidas?

There's always something new.

Join the Nordy Club at Nordstrom Rack to unlock exclusive discounts on your favorite brands shop new arrivals first and more plus get an extra five percent off every rack purchase with a nordstrom credit card great brands great prices that's why you rack at least somebody's trying to fix the news about time and we got them on this show yes and where else are you going to hear about it where else are you going to see this i don't know because we just try to deal in objective truths i know we'll look at the biases and why where how who's doing it who's not.

We are all in here on Star Talk.

Special Edition coming up.

Welcome to Star Talk,

your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.

Star Talk begins right now.

This is Star Talk,

Special Edition.

How about that?

I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson here right next to Gary O'Reilly.

When you see Gary, it is special.

Today, we're talking about a very important subject.

Yeah.

The news.

Yeah.

It was something we've been wanting to come to grips with for a while now.

Who would have thought that you'd have to talk about that?

When I grew up, the news was just the news, and you went on about your life.

You watched the news and then you went to the real TV when you were growing up as a kid.

This news thing got in the way.

Right, yeah, the news was like, yeah, I don't need this.

See, now it seems we live in a constant need for news.

It's not just on the hour, it's every hour, 24 hours a day.

But I would say that it's a desire for news, but a strong enough desire becomes a need.

Wow.

That's what I think is going on.

Right, okay.

I mean, just have to think about the number of news channels there are on TV, if TV even exists anymore.

Then there's online, there's social media platforms.

But not just how many are there, how many hours a day they broadcast news.

Oh, gosh, yeah.

Right.

I mean, it does fold out into a large number.

I mean, throw in the unfiltered influences,

and then the news landscape will and can look a bit of a mess.

We all have our trusted news preferences, our go-to's.

And as I've said before, the better the information, the better the decisions that you're going to make based on that information.

Exactly.

Right.

But do we know if these news sources bring their own filters filters or their own biases?

It's not always obvious to see from the outsider just by a headline.

Sometimes it is by the headline.

This is where our guest comes in, Neil.

So if you would introduce them, please.

I'd be delighted to.

Yes.

We have with us Harlene Corr.

Harlene, welcome to Star Talk.

Thanks, Neil.

Delighted to be here.

Excellent.

And you're in from Canada.

That's right.

Canada.

The 51st century.

That's right.

We have no water.

We have to prove that.

Where did you read that news?

I don't know.

Some news source told me that that's what it was.

That happened.

Co-founder and CEO, I got it here, of Ground News.

All right.

Are you grounded?

Grounded means you have an objective understanding of reality in any language, I'm pretty sure.

Because the ground is the ground.

Yep.

You're a former engineer?

That's right.

And what kind of engineer?

A space engineer.

Loving it.

In the right place.

Yes.

Yes.

So big fun new.

Okay.

Thank you.

You are trying to

fix the news problem, not by giving it a bias of your own, but by figuring out a way to de-bias it.

That's right.

In some objective way that people around a table can say, hey, I see what you did there.

And we kind of all agree, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

As Gary said, if I have what I would consider a trusted source of news and what you do to the news makes it look different from that,

why should I have any confidence at all that you're doing the right thing?

Yeah, that's a very good question.

So let me try and explain what we do at Grand News.

So we are.

No, there is no try.

There's do or do not.

I shall explain

what we are doing at Grand News.

So how we view news is that something happens, as you call the objective truth, something happens, and then it goes through this prism of the media landscape, and then it fragments into all these million of different versions of what exactly happens.

And depending on where news outlets are,

what their biases are, or what their agendas are, or who's funding them, who owns them, who is the audience that they don't want to piss off.

And who's the sponsor?

Who's the sponsor?

Then they will tell you, although

the event that they're reporting is is the same event, but how they're reporting it is going to be very, very different.

And depending on what version you're reading,

your perception of the reality of what happens is going to be very, very different to each other.

To the point, yeah, using a space analogy, we are literally sometimes living in the different universes, depending on what news outlets or group of outlets.

Analogy totally works.

Thank you.

You've met people and say, what universe did you come from?

Did you come from?

Yeah.

Literally, did you come from?

I've said that way too many times lately.

Yeah,

are we finding the same thing?

So, yeah, our job is not to say that this one's right or this one's wrong.

And what we do is we literally reconstitute all of that, those versions together, to

reverse engineer what might have happened.

So we'll show.

Whoa.

Whoa.

There's a new take on that.

That's badass.

Yeah.

So what criteria?

Let them finish her thing.

She just used the word reverse engineering.

Let that sentence finish.

The engineer said reverse engineering.

Yeah, yeah.

I hope it doesn't become scientist versus the engineer here.

Not for this interview.

Otherwise, meet me outside.

We'll talk about it.

I give up.

We put all those sources together.

So let's say

there is some executive order that is passed and there is a news story saying, hey, this is the headline and this is what happened.

We will show you along the spectrum of how the different news sources cover it, all the way from the far left to the far right.

And then we don't put any check marks or X's against any of them.

We very much let you decide where the truth kind of gets reconstituted and

you use your critical thinking to put that together.

You use your critical thinking.

Yes.

What does that presume?

Where's the big assumption there?

Oh, you're absolutely right.

Or you should use your critical thinking.

Which is a skill we are all losing.

Which is a skill that...

It's interesting you say that.

How it's more herd mentality then?

It's herd mentality, but also I think we're becoming lazy a bit because we, I feel like we like to be intellectually lazy because it's great to hear somebody else talk about what they think about it or what their opinion is about something and then regurgitate it rather than using your own brain to be able to say because it takes effort to be able to do that.

I'll just pick one guy, one girl, one substack, one podcast,

one newsletter, one news channel, whatever it is, and then just follow the one that I agree with and reinforces my cognitive bias.

So the psychology of the news and how it's absorbed, how it's portrayed, is now much, much deeper than you and I growing up.

Oh, there's a nice guy in a suit and a tie and he's reading the stories from the day at 6 p.m.

And then we moved on.

There are a couple of reasons why that's not the case anymore.

So, one is there was a doctrine called Fairness Doctrine, if you've heard of that, that came into existence, I think, late 1940s.

That early.

That early.

Yeah.

That's before TV.

That's true.

Because they wanted FCC, wanted radio and then TV to take responsibility to provide a more

equitable and honest version of what's really going on.

So there was a fairness doctrine where the onus was on the broadcasters to actually show all versions of the.

And they had that control of them because the federal government allocated the

electromagnetic spectrum to them, right?

That's right.

That's how they control it.

The licenses.

That's right.

Right.

And then it got repealed during the Reagan administration.

So that's where the fragmentation really, really happened because then

there wasn't

any legal obligation to be able to say that I have to show all this various versions and show the, that's why the guy in Thai that told the Walter Cronkite version of the news that used to exist, didn't exist.

And then, of course, everything spun out of control when

news hit the internet and then later hit social media and then it just went crazy.

Because I remember, I mean, this is how old I am.

I remember when the news would give an opinion.

It was like, are you seated?

Okay.

This is about to give an opinion.

Get ready for this opinion.

We're going to come back and we're going to sit here and this is going to be an opinion.

Yes.

Like flashing an opinion.

And then it was over.

And then...

And it wasn't told, it wasn't snuck in to be said, this is news.

This is an opinion.

Yeah, as you said, very much categorized.

So let me ask you.

What criteria?

are you using at Ground News to determine an outlet's bias, be it left, center, or right?

That's right.

So, um can a center be biased?

Ooh, that's a philosophical question.

I told you we're in there deep.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

So, one decision we made early on, again, to be as neutral as possible and in a way as scientific as possible.

We do not determine the rating, that if the CNN is left or Fox is right.

We're using third-party rating agencies, and actually, we are using three of them who use three different methodologies.

One of them is using crowdsourcing, one of them is using experts,

one of them is using algorithms, and then we take a statistical average of them and then say, okay, based on

these rating agencies, that's where the news outlet lies.

And do you look for keywords that would indicate...

That's right.

That's right.

How does the story get framed?

What topics do they cover more often than less often?

And how much time they give to that topic, to that topic, which is which is very, very interesting as well.

That it's not one thing that we stumbled upon, to be honest, I did not set out to do, was it's not necessarily

the spin on the coverage, it's the lack of coverage completely that tells the bias of the outlet as well.

Very recently,

when markets were crashing, there were certain outlets, if you went to it, then you wouldn't know that there's anything terrible happening in the financials.

The nothing to see here approach to news.

You said the spin.

Yes.

Do we still call them spin doctors?

Or is that such an archaic term?

Well, for the the politicians, yes.

But I think the news outlets are very, very much very much.

Well, the spin doctor was one person among many who was doing the spin.

But now the many are spinning.

Yeah.

And that's spinning hard.

Everybody's at the doctors.

Several doctors.

Convention.

Okay, so

when I suppose an article goes beyond simple bias and it's...

actually misinformed, misleading.

Yes.

I mean, not misinformation, but disinformation.

Yes.

how do you sort of scan that

and what's behind that I think is you began this conversation saying there's an event yes and then you watch how people cover the event yes or don't however

that presumes that everyone has equal access to the objective true information about the event yeah but in the days of reporters different reporters would be delivering information back to the to the newsroom from their view

So

there's another layer in there, isn't there?

It's not just the person presenting the news or writing the article, it's the person who's supplying

the information.

Yes, yes.

So again,

it's very hard to say that anything is objective because this is a chain of humans, as you described it.

Somebody is reporting it, somebody is writing about it, and then somebody is watching it and making sense out of it.

The game of telephone in the UK.

That's exactly what

I do.

Well, maybe I i did don't i don't remember

so no okay i know we invented the telephone so maybe you didn't do it but we we wouldn't play it just out of spite

no in elementary school you do it in elementary school like kindergarten or something and someone starts with a story that has a little bit of detail but not

not

okay no not on the level that you can't remember it right it's like so so mary wore a blue dress to johnny's birthday party right and he turned six and he blew out the candles and made a wish he'd go to Disneyland.

Okay.

Something like that.

Yeah.

That's very, there's nothing weird about that.

And I tell to you, you tell the next person, you whisper it.

And then at the end,

it's like, hey, Joey wanted to go into space and have a birthday party.

It's one of the first things we learn in elementary school, how unreliable the human

communicating information is.

That's right.

But if you had the versions of all of those people along the chain and put it together, perhaps you can decipher what where exactly.

But everyone's version is accurate in their own mind and is passed on.

But the helicopter view is something very different.

That's right.

So let me answer your question, Gary.

How do you determine if there is disinformation

included?

So let me take an extreme example.

I don't know.

There was a claim a few years ago, a

totally false claim, that

medicine called ivermectin cured COVID.

And let's assume a news outlet

publishes that claim.

So what Ground News does is, again, we will not just show that claim published by that outlet, we'll also show all the other outlets commenting on it, saying, hey, how there are claims out there.

So they react to it.

They react to it.

Reaction videos and also correcting it.

Soundists go out and correcting it and

publishing reports that, hey,

this is a claim that's not true.

The second thing we do is, apart from bias ratings, we also provide factuality ratings of the news outlets.

So, how have they

historically

been reporting?

And so on

their reporting practices, we'll say, hey, this is historically.

Is it from one source or again, is that correct?

It's from a cluster of sources.

Again, trying to be as neutral and as close to objectivity as we possibly can be, that we do.

So, again, when you're reading that news, not in isolation, but again, clustered with the other reactions, other

disproving of that claim,

then

you have all the information at least in one place to be able to say

this is true or not.

But that's what we're trying to do.

Okay, word-salad question.

Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and cognitive biases.

They're not phrases that you would have heard 10 years ago, probably.

But now,

in terms of a news news.

No, yeah, definitely not news.

So

this is now the landscape

of news media.

You've got to go through filter bubbles or look through someone's bubble, understand if that is something, and then find yourself in an echo chamber.

That's right.

So interestingly enough, I'll start at a very different place.

I think the reason all this has happened, again, going back to what's happened with news, is one of the main reasons is the revenue models of the news outlets.

So the revenue models of news outlets have gone to, similar to social media, advertising.

And how much time can we retain you on the channel or on the app or on the website?

Commodity is your attention.

That's it.

That's what they are.

But then how do you do that?

By not showing you stuff you might disagree with and leave the site or leave the app.

So keep showing you, again, reinforcing that cognitive bias,

creating that bubble.

So, and then you're like, yeah, this news outlet gets me or this guy and girl gets me.

I want to be.

In the old days, and I just know this from what I was told, I didn't research this, the news was not expected,

TV news was not expected to be a revenue generating center.

Yes.

It was funded by all of the other programming that went on in the day.

And the news was a service to, of course it had ads, yes.

But they, it was, there wasn't a calculation done that they have to adjust the news to boost ad revenue.

Yeah, but now each news channel is its own profit center.

So then

how do you make sure that remains profitable, as you're saying, that if that is the

revenue generating source, then you keep showing people what they want to see and not let them...

You say that, hey, I cannot own the entire population.

I'm going to own this slice of population that believes in these things and I'm going to keep reinforcing those beliefs,

these few things.

I like the phrase to own them.

Own them.

basically that is i mean you're they do what you say they think what you think yeah i mean they think what you tell them to think yeah and then they own you and then you're working very much with the demographics that's that's right so so that's that's where i think again going back to the different universes come in come in that yeah if you're reading reading that channel uh listening to that channel or or reading that newspaper or even group of newspapers that are are similar to that ideology then you would think of things happening very differently what they what another person at an opposite end of the spectrum might be thinking.

If you're enjoying this episode and want to start using Ground News, head to ground.new/slash StarTalk to get 40% off their vantage plan, the same one we use here at StarTalk.

That's ground.news slash star talk for access to their top-tier tier plan for just $5 per month.

The best business-to-business marketing gets wasted on the wrong people.

Think of the guy on the third floor of a 10-storey apartment block who's getting bombarded with ads for solar panels.

What a waste!

So when you want to reach the right professionals, use LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers, and that's where it stands apart from other ad buyers.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company, role, seniority, skills, company revenue.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience.

It's why LinkedIn Ads generates the highest business-to-business revenue on ad spend of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them.

Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn Ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one.

No strings attached.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash star talk.

That's linkedin.com/slash star talk.

Terms and conditions apply.

That's the sound of the fully electric Audi Q6 e-tron and the quiet confidence of ultra-smooth handling.

The elevated interior reminds you this is more than an EV.

This is electric performance redefined.

I'm going to put you on, nephew.

Hi, Don.

Welcome to McDonald's.

Can I take your order?

Miss, I've been hitting up McDonald's for years.

Now it's back.

We need snack wraps.

What's a snack rap?

It's the return of something great.

Snack wrap is back.

Now that we understand a little bit better what's out there and how it's sort of brought forward, what strategies people develop

to be able to see through, to be able to be aware of what bias might be spun at?

It's self-awareness.

It is, but it's a very tough ask for somebody to do.

I think to challenge that, a few tools that we are using, and as a layperson, even if you don't want to use Ground News, I hope you do, but if you don't, you can use it yourself.

One is very much what we call lateral reading.

Again, take the news sources and read it across, even if you don't agree with them, you don't have to, but just having that access and challenging yourself, as you said, having the self-awareness that there are other versions of what's happening.

Second, as I said,

by going across the news sources, or if you are, let's say on social media, you are the person who gets news on social media, go follow accounts that you might not agree with and

they make you might make you angry, but at least going out and seeing what we are calling blind spots.

So, we have a feature called blind spots.

What we mean is that if you were reading a certain set of news sources, you would have never come across these news stories.

And every single day, and it's not just one side or the other, both sides of the spectrum are very much, they do that, they just leave certain news stories out.

So, how are you going to find that?

Uh, find them and by the way, just as a professional educator, I can't call myself that.

You just did?

Yes, it's true.

You are, okay.

You are um,

I, you know, I'm born and raised in New York City, so I lean left politically.

But when someone starts railing on the political right, and I say, well, where did you get that information?

And they talk about the New York Times or MSNBC, whatever.

Then I tell them, I probably watch much more Fox News than you do.

So you're doing that already?

Yes, yes.

I do it on purpose.

And what that helps me is I know there's our demographics that watch Fox News exclusively.

Yes.

And I've been on Fox News.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's a couple of other shows.

So when I'm out

in the wild,

in the wild.

When I'm set forth into the nation,

I have some sense of what forces are operating on people's thoughts.

And it makes me a way more.

potent educator, I think.

I'm so glad you say, Neil, that you do that, because then you can exactly have that empathy to understand where people are.

I mean, it's not to pass judgment.

It's to just understand.

Yeah.

What force is operating on the brain?

Well,

we get such heartening feedback all the time where, hey, I stopped talking to my father or stopped talking to my uncle or husband and wife stopped talking because our political views didn't agree.

And it's fracturing people.

And one common thing that do is, okay, let's agree not to talk politics, but that cannot be the solution.

Like we cannot solve other problems if we don't address and bring people back to common ground.

So that's, I think, the only way you can do that is presenting all of the different opinions.

And you don't have to agree with it.

But when you run into that person who had this opinion, you can have at least an educated conversation about it.

That's a strategy for an individual.

Yes.

That wants to get a better understanding of the news landscape.

Doesn't that assume they want to get a better understanding?

I think so.

Yeah, suppose they don't want to.

It's interesting you say that.

They're fed the way they are.

So I think nobody wants to be gamed.

I think that's for sure.

Nobody wants to.

Just say you're being gamed.

Oh, that those are fighting words.

I like that.

You have been gamed.

Yeah.

And that's that.

Everybody thinks they have self-awareness, right?

Everybody thinks they have self-awareness.

And

it's just that it's very challenging when we are presenting the worldview that we don't agree with.

And how are you going to go find it if you keep cocooning yourself with information?

And if it's not in agreeance with you, then it's wrong.

Yes.

That's just different.

Yeah.

Let's spin that around.

Rather than put the burden

of responsibility on the individual, could the corporations, and there are major corporations in play here, could they be more responsible for the messaging?

We can.

I think...

Again, things like fairness doctrine was one of the ways that we could

ask, but I don't think that's going to happen again.

One specific thing is, of course, social media.

I think social media is,

as you know,

a it's the most intense form of those reinforced algorithms that are.

It's an outrage engine.

It's an outrage engine.

They know that more outrage you are more time you'll spend on it and

more likely you are to click.

But that's an example though.

It's the opposite of what you said a moment ago.

There's one thing to show me what I want to see

because I agree with it.

But

if you show me something that I vehemently disagree with,

that gets me bubbling.

And then I for that, look what they said over here

without checking but what exactly so it seems to work on both extremes of the it does but but i think again it's not that um say it's showing you yeah the the emotion works on both extremes yes but uh but again you might forward it but if you but it's such an exaggerated version of whatever it is on the other side as well that you are shown it's not exactly that you're becoming enlightened by seeing seeing that news story you're getting enraged by seeing that news story but not not necessarily.

But yeah, because

it's,

again,

whatever the hot button topic is, take the most emotional, exaggerated version of that and show it to you.

What is your revenue model?

Yeah, so one.

That's a good question.

Whoa, whoa, we're talking about other things.

How are you like that?

No softball.

Try to answer that one.

No, it is straightforward.

So one thing early on we decided is we are not going to do the ad revenue model because then you are just recreating the problem that you're trying to solve.

So we decided to go with a subscription model.

If you find our tools, our navigation tools to read news helpful, if you find our analysis helpful, then you can pay us a subscription to be able to use the product.

And it's 100% subscription supported.

Way to do that.

If you find value in the product,

pay it to us.

But we have a free main model.

We realize not everybody in the world.

If they don't find any value in it, then you pay them.

Sorry, wasted your time.

You wasted my time.

My time is $100 an hour.

Outside of the revenue models,

is it my imagination?

Yeah.

It might be.

But

has science become a trigger, especially on social media?

That's an interesting question.

What do you mean by that?

Yeah.

Okay.

Throw a view at somebody that aggravates

out of them, right?

And science seems to be one of those trigger points.

My answer to that would be because I think people like making compelling arguments on social medias.

And that's why throwing a scientific, I don't know, an excerpt of scientific report or scientific news, which is either taken out of context, which as a scientist you would never do.

You would explain the nuance.

And to make...

So good point.

So you throw in a little bit of science.

Exactly.

You get to boost what your audience might think is the authenticity of the account.

It goes back to that old adage of

every good lie

grain of truth.

Now it depends on the size of that grain.

I've never heard that.

Oh, you're kidding me.

Never.

So you haven't heard of telephone anyway.

No.

No, no, no.

I've heard.

Every day's a school day.

No, not every lie.

I've heard every stereotype has a grain of truth.

I've heard that.

Oh, well, then copy and paste.

Every good lie has a grain of truth in it.

Okay.

It's one of those sort of

storytelling.

So it goes back to telephone.

It's the storytelling.

That we never went to the moon has no truth in it at all.

That's why.

The Earth is flat.

There's no truth in it.

As a former NASA engineer, I think we can very much agree on that one.

There is objective.

Science is weaponized.

Yes, that's right.

Because

it adds heft to an argument.

But if you use snip it out of context.

So what we started at least doing at Ground News is if there is a news story being reported about a study that

every single day there's some study coming out and then the headline only covers covers a partial.

We actually started,

actually, started connecting that report.

So, if you want to go read the report in the entirety and even summarize it for you and say, hey, this is the entirety of it,

how's AI summaries lately?

They've gotten much, much better.

They have gotten much, much better.

But out of the box, LLMs have a lot of hallucination, which is for a use case like news is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do.

So, we have worked a lot on putting guardrails in place that it sticks to exactly what's been done.

hallucinating

so i mean this i mean is this where the problem

sitting there open the hatch and there it is doing ayahuasca doing it with a shaman but but i think ai can be very powerful for news so again i i

i would like to think just as internet gave us access to so much information of course which had a lot of positive but some negative, AI can help us

understand,

improve our comprehension of news.

Again, at Ground News, we show you, for example, hundreds of different versions of the article.

We have people who read through all of that, but if you don't have time, summarizing it and giving it to you in a format that where we can highlight the differences or highlight where the news outlets agree, make your life much easier.

Again, we don't say, hey, this is right or wrong, but this is the summarization of what's happened.

Or this is the summarization of the same thing.

So you don't bring the judgment to the.

We don't bring the judgment because I think as soon as you bring the judgment, you alienate somebody and we don't do that.

We mentioned AI.

Is it it likely we're going to get responsible, I'll say journalism, formed by artificial intelligence or are we going to end up with constant stream of deep fakes?

And something I've come to understand or just learn recently, synthetic headlines.

Yes.

I mean, I'm used to the bias of the news outlet being in the headline and therefore there's no need to read the article because they want you just to read the headline and then

by the way.

Exactly.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean we all think we're time poor.

Yeah.

And therefore, I've only got the time to read the headline.

But does AI have the capacity to really stop?

And if it does, will it ever be utilized that way?

I think like any

groundbreaking technology, AI has the possibility to do both, which is help the news and hurt the news, which is doing as well.

Help the news by doing things like identifying deepfakes, by giving tools to journalists to

be able to produce quality content or take out the the bias, even highlight the bias.

You're asking AI to turn itself in.

Okay, so

one day AI is going to say, I'm not going to do what the humans tell me.

These are our people.

Our deep fakes are our people.

You're looking at the AI, but I'd look further back in the history and say it's the design of the algorithm.

If you want to design it to do those things, then you will.

If you don't, then it goes in a different direction.

Where are we with the biases on algorithms that people thought were not biased?

Yeah, that's a feature recognition software.

That is correct.

Yeah.

So I think they have been, now there are companies actively working on

ways to correct that and again create data sets to be able to reset that, to remove bias.

And same for news as well.

So there are data sets that exist.

And for example, we work very, very hard to identify when there is biased language and to be able to say, hey, this,

and simply sometimes just highlighting it and say, hey, this is where the bias is and

help people.

And the bias is not so much in the nouns as it is in the adjectives.

It's in the adjectives.

I remember

it's funny.

One adjective comes to mind.

So last time President Trump,

there was a parade and then every headline on the left kept using the word soggy and every headline on the right kept using grand and it was like, how did they agree on which adjective to use and it's like saggy for it and yeah that's an argument in between major corporations that dominate the news outlet universe and the wild west of social media and unregulated uh influencers are we kidding ourselves to think that we're going to get responsible journalism coming forward no you just said her whole job is pointless

our our job is to help me make sense i think that's the

uh that's what we are doing.

No, I don't think we are kidding ourselves.

And my job is not pointless.

We are trying to.

I think there's amazing journalism coming out.

There are journalists out there who are working on exposés that take years.

There is some journalists out there in a cave and I don't know wherever trying to report to you.

That's all that amazing work happening.

I think the problem is it gets drowned out or

drowned out by all the else that exists around the world.

There's the noise that exists.

It's the noise again.

It's the noise again.

So I think, yeah, we, again, we, our job is, at least at Ground News, is not to recreate this amazing work, but to be able to help you dial down that noise and give you tools to be able to read that.

So I got to land this plane.

So let me ask you,

what are the metrics that you might use to know if you're succeeding?

Very good question.

Very good question.

I think the number one metric for me is how many news sources people end up reading.

When they come to ground news, we see that in our KPIs, that people would go to two or three sources that quote-unquote trust or came in with.

But within three months, we see that 3x.

People are going to 10 different news sources because

the ease of it and expanding that.

Do you have to pay a fee to those news sources to channel them into your

no, we don't because if you want to read their articles, you're still going to the publisher's website.

They're not reading it on your website.

No, you cannot.

That's where we draw the line.

And so if you want to read that, go to New York Times or go to whoever.

But yeah, we see that.

We actually had a researcher from Duke University who did research on Grand News and found out that people's opinions can actually be changed if they're presented with

counter to what their beliefs are.

So, we really think that's got to be the way that we can bring everybody back to the same page, back to common ground.

That's very hopeful.

Yeah, I didn't think this would end, hopefully, but it did.

You pessimist,

yes, I was totally skeptical.

Well, thank you for this insight.

Where can we find you online?

You can go to ground.news to our website.

Ground.news.

News is the

domain name.

The domain name.

That's right, ground.news.

Or you can go to the App Store or Play Store and look for Ground News app.

Oh, then you put it on your

smartphone.

You can use it from your smartphone.

But yeah, we have a free version and we are subscription supported.

So let me see if I can knock this out with a little bit of cosmic perspective, if I may.

I've said a couple of times, I'm on record noting,

that

as AI gets better and better,

yes, there's the good side, but the bad side is it can be better at making deep fakes.

And a deep fake becomes a source of what someone thinks is an objective reality, what someone thinks is news.

And then that becomes part of what people then argue over.

And

I worry, and I think I still worry, even after this conversation, that

it could signal the end of the internet when deep fakes become so good

and it's known that they're good that all the people who used to believe the fake news

won't believe the fake news anymore because they'll be sure that it was faked.

Once the people who believe fake news no longer believe anything on the internet, there's nothing left on the internet to believe, not even the fake news, because that was faked.

And I think that would signal the end of the internet as a source of objective information in this world.

And we'd all go back to just reading books and talking to people in the town square and maybe reading broadsheets stapled up on the bulletin board.

And then the internet will just resort to cat videos, just as it once was.

And that's my cosmic perspective on that topic.

And let me thank our special guest, Holleen Kaur, who's trying to fix the world one reader at a time.

And good luck with that.

I think you'll need some of that as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Gary?

Pleasure, Neil.

Thank you.

Good to have you, man.

Yeah.

Signing out from my office here at the American Museum of Natural History.

As always, I bid you to keep looking up.

The change doesn't

have it, but it is not important what changes in 5 years.

There is a cosa que semente draygual, the president of Twinternet, with the 5 años of guarantee of Xfinity,

5 años del Wi-Fi más confiable con nuestro mejore'ti poincluido, a un prescio que semantien exactamentigual.

Si applican restriciones solo news clines residencial impuestos yargos estres ojetos a cambio.

Wi-Fi más confiable vasado en Open Signal Awards USA.

Fixed Broadben Experience Report de Josto tos milventicuro.

At Capella University, learning online doesn't mean learning alone.

You'll get support from people who care about your success, like your enrollment specialist who gets to know you and the goals you'd you'd like to achieve.

You'll also get a designated academic coach who's with you throughout your entire program.

Plus, career coaches are available to help you navigate your professional goals.

A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.

Learn more at capella.edu.