I use GroundNews. Their biggest value to me is that I can see the headlines for the same coverage from different sources before I read the text. A lot of times this alone is enough to tell me if there is actual content there or just speculation/alarmism. If I do decide to read the content, it's a very easy way to get a few different perspectives on the same matter, and over time I start to recognise patterns in the reporting styles even when I'm not reading through GroundNews.

Another useful feature is that you can past an article link or headline and it will show you alternative sources for the same coverage. This doesn't always find useful alternatives, but it's a simple, easy way to do basic fact-checking.

And while most people here might not appreciate it, when they aggregate multiple sources, they also have an LLM-written summary of the content of the articles. The (somewhat ironic) thing about these summaries is that often they're the least biased, most factual interpretation of the news compared to all the sources covering it. This is because the summaries are generated from all the content, so when the LLM finds weak or contrasting information, it won't report it as a fact; when most of the sources agree, then it will summarise the conclusion. This is an excellent use for LLM in my opinion, but you can use GroundNews perfectly fine without it.

That’s a brilliant idea actually, thanks!