Many articles are horrendously biased in the US. For lulz, I just went to the CBC website and found most of those articles quite dull, actually. (I ignored most of the articles about US politics) Even an article about a con-artist stealing $300k from his soon to be ex-wife was kind of dry.

But, bias is still there. It's extremely mild compared to what I am used to, but it's there. Interestingly, it shows in how articles are arranged, not in specific words. Good things first, controversial last for a "negative" article as an example. (How an article is structured determines how a reader feels after they finish reading. There was an article about a Chinese Bubble Tea chain right now I could use as a good example of this.)

The "I don't like this article, which means it's biased" point is still extremely valid. I would hesitate to call is strictly a US construct because it seems like a standard reaction for people who do not have the capability to be objective. The world is filled with those kinds of people.

I bounced around a bit with my point, but a poor reader will probably default to bias as an excuse for any emotion they feel. Unfortunately, the US does have its fair share of poor readers.

(Side note, I try to follow some structure with my posts online when talking about these kinds of subjects. The last paragraph will likely be something more people can find common ground with, like I did here. It's not fake or made up, but showing compromise or understanding last is less likely to result in a hostile rebuttal.)

Honestly just makes me proud.

Yes. In the listing of the actual articles, it will show you if that source is paywalled with a little dollar symbol over the source's icon. It also gives a summary of what the articles are about.

Where Google News shows you an article from one source and let's you click to see other sources, Ground News shows you all the sources it's found and let's you choose.