How do you get your “news”?

[Ron Scott]

For some years I tried to expose myself to both left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times) and right (Fox et al). Ultimately I did not find that useful as I’d often hear the same story told from multiple silly perspectives, without nuance, and with one side often leaving out a detail or 2 that didn’t support their case LOL.

More recently I started to subscribe to a variety of YouTube channels that are reported to be least biased politically. It’s not horrible, but the range in topics seems limited and I’m constantly fighting the rabbit-hole shit where Google serves up more and more of what I’ve watched recently, hoping they’ll pull me in longer without giving me a well-rounded experience.

Attending to international coverage seems to help…a little.

I’m a bit frustrated. I can’t stand drinking others’ Kool-Aid, but I also can’t find a magic elixir. 

[reeshau]

My UK friends laugh at me, because it suffers from the same issues for its domestic coverage, but I like the BBC's coverage of the US.  For most things, they don't have a dog in the fight.  But, they also don't assume their audience knows the players or issues, so they have to explain everything, like who the Proud Boys are, or what Black Lives Matter is.  Far from being too basic, I think starting at this level sets the writers up to be more thorough and objective.

For more local issues, I am warming up to the Texas Tribune.

[RetiredAt63]

international coverage is good. 

BBC, CBC, ABC (A for Australia).  Adding from Canada, the Globe and Mail is good for business stuff.

When I was in New Zealand winter of 2019/20 (so start of Covid) Al Jazeera was one of my best news sources.

What I learned watching the Winter Olympics while visiting California (before Covid) is that even "good"  USian news sources are very narrow in their news coverage.

[Tasse]

I don't use this personally, so it comes to you without anecdotal support, but I've heard it recommended for bias balance. It aggregates headlines on a single topic from left, center, and right leaning sources. https://www.allsides.com/

[Just Joe]

Occasionally I watch a little France24 and DW-News. Both offer English live TV streams.

The real in depth news will be in text form I think but when I want some noise and moving pictures...

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I found Ground News to be useful in combatting news bias.  They will provide some "blindspot" articles, where a story has been mostly ignored by the right or left news media.  You could also click on the same story from far right, center or far left sources, to get some variety.

https://ground.news/

[Ron Scott]

Thanks all. I do watch some DW and Allsides. Both certainly worthwhile although I find the breadth of coverage a bit light. I also don’t find reading both the left and right position on a story to be all that helpful sometimes. Kinda like I read 2 bullshit takes on one event without getting to the heart of it.

Just spent 15 minutes with Ground News. Very promising.

I started on this journey after being really shocked how angry some people get when their media-based worldview is challenged. Disagreement is roundly condemned—like someone shot their dog LOL. Still searching.

[GilesMM]

How about these?


https://www.theguardian.com/us


https://www.propublica.org/


https://www.npr.org/

[GuitarStv]

BBC, CBC, NPR, the economist, and reuters are my main news sources.  Most of the American network TV news is kind of trashy and awful to read.

[2Birds1Stone]

I can't believe I'm actually responding to a RS thread........but maybe someone will find this useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

[ATtiny85]

I watch the 30 minute local news (NBC affiliate) program for about 18 minutes in the morning (up until the weather segment) and often have the entire half hour on in the evening.

They cover the things around town that might be of interest, or at least interesting. They also cover the major national and international stories briefly. Those are rarely of interest, but occasionally interesting.

[AuspiciousEight]

I can't believe I'm actually responding to a RS thread........but maybe someone will find this useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Oh wow - this is very useful. Thanks for sharing this.

I used to use Google news, but I'm just not that interested in a lot of the "news" articles there because there is so much dramatic click bait.

This looks like exactly what I was looking for to replace Google news.

[partgypsy]

You have to look at bias. And also how much of it is fact vs analysis, and past then opinion blurring into propaganda. High on fact and low in bias are sites like stars and stripes, pro publica, ap, bbc. I would rate youtube aggregator sites as low quality sources, and most likely more opinion based. In fact a lot of conspiracy theories are propagated through YouTube and videos.  https://guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechart

[partgypsy]

We already have a problem with a huge amount of poorly written low quality "news" content. I fear that with the current admin may end up spreading propaganda vs actual objective news. For example Trump using his status as president for the worst aviation accident in 20 years, not to comfort the families and loved ones, (and us as a country) but as an opportunity to attack DEI. Very inaporopriate. 45 is also kicking out news sites that have won Pulitzer prizes for sites that are rated high in bias and low in factual accuracy. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/business/media/pentagon-press-corps.html

[iris lily]

I have signed ip,with Ground News for a year to see what is labeled right and left views, and to see which sources are covering stories.

I pretty much read the headlines.

[iris lily]

How about these?


https://www.theguardian.com/us


https://www.propublica.org/


https://www.npr.org/

Npr. Strongly biased. That is ok as ling as one hears NPR, news with knowledge of their bias.

 One of their longtime editors called them out last year for their ideological bent and he was fired. Nothing wrong with firing a dissenter on staff but the guy had some inside information to share so I appreciated that.

[GuitarStv]

How about these?


https://www.theguardian.com/us


https://www.propublica.org/


https://www.npr.org/

Npr. Strongly biased. That is ok as ling as one hears NPR, news with knowledge of their bias.

 One of their longtime editors called them out last year for their ideological bent and he was fired. Nothing wrong with firing a dissenter on staff but the guy had some inside information to share so I appreciated that.

I've always seen it as slightly left biased . . . which seems to correspond to both online bias checking sources: https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/, and https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-editorial.

[partgypsy]

Pro publica is neutral, npr slightly liberal. Guardian is liberal but has excellent news reporting.

[iris lily]

How about these?


https://www.theguardian.com/us


https://www.propublica.org/


https://www.npr.org/

Npr. Strongly biased. That is ok as ling as one hears NPR, news with knowledge of their bias.

 One of their longtime editors called them out last year for their ideological bent and he was fired. Nothing wrong with firing a dissenter on staff but the guy had some inside information to share so I appreciated that.

I've always seen it as slightly left biased . . . which seems to correspond to both online bias checking sources: https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/, and https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-editorial.

Probably  I shouldn’t use the word “strongly.” NPR is left biased at a medium level, but in specific areas such as Trump stories, “strongly” is not too forceful an adjective.