I like the way the Behind the Bastards podcaster explains it. Each journalistic outlet had strengths to certain things and part of learning to consume journalism is knowing what each sources’ strengths or weaknesses are. Or learning to follow specific journalists across platforms.

And some just play to the echo chambering of political parties saying exactly what their reader base wants to hear. It’s good to learn what those are as well.

AP, Reuters, BBC, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist, also Ground News (at risk of sounding like a YT content producer)

AP, Routers, BBC, Al Jazeera.

Whenever I want to know the facts without any editorializing, I go for AP.

My local newspaper.

Associated Press and Reuters.

Wapo has been justifying a genocide for a year but a Bezos cartoon is what made you reconsider?

None. All are biased. The best way is to read multiple news sources being aware of what their biases are.

All are biased.

If there’s an event occurring within the last few days I’ll check AP and a couple other moderate/right sources to check/compare spin.

After a few days there’s usually a pod out on it from the left view. I like It Could Happen Here, Some More News, and Even More News. They’re incredibly well sourced, and are out in the open about their biases.

Even when there’s no editorializing there’s selection bias. That selection is due to capacity or the political viewpoint of the reporting. You won’t see stories that are less relevant to reporter/editor interest.

Bias is less concerning to me than accuracy. Left/right? I don’t really care as long as the reporting is accurate.

‘the chart’ is a good starting point.

note: linking to harvard because they have a static snapshot that is viewable without scripting enabled. just click it to go to the source at ad fontes.

i tend to stick with local public radio. it’s always on when i’m in the car. when i see a post or headline that i want to read more about, i feed it to the duck and look for relevant content at places like reuters, ap, npr, or the nearest major papers (milwaukee, madison) that aren’t in chicago (too much ‘chicagoland’ in them, and i avoid the city).

My brain. I read everything, sometimes I also go on r/Republican if the news are particularly biased to the left, I often leave more stupid than before but it’s a good test.

Always challenge what you are reading, add your research if the matter is important to you, use different websites, search engines and even AI.

More perspective is better than “always 1 news site”

I’ve seen many good online newspaper fall into oblivion and new good one to born.

It’s all biased but since I haven’t seen it mentioned I like tangle. It comes as an email

i use bbc and routers

All corporate news has been moved to the right, even NPR. For all practical purposes, local news has been eliminated. Local news formed the basis for trust and truth. Getting you news at a local ground level creates trust - you may know the reporter or you kids go to school with his kids. There is nothing wrong with news bias if you have sources that you can trust to report the truth and not omit critical information. That said, seek out and listen to people like Timothy Snyder, who have important messages. Here’s a clip of him talking about how the internet has changed and corrupted our news and views.
I like listening to Belle of the Ranch, because she succinctly explains important topics that the MSM does not - note she does present views from a more leftist angle.
Steve Shives is a Youtuber does not report the news but offers opinion that might inspire you to do further research. Finding good reliable news sources takes work, while junk news is cheap, readily available and detrimental to you.

NPR isn’t too bad.