
Places for true un-politicized news about the US? - csneeky
It&#x27;s just that I rotate between all these organizations (e.g., reuters, cnn, foxnews, msnbc) and I legit don&#x27;t know where to actually find unpartisan material anymore.
======
auganov
Forget about nonpartisan. Everybody has a bias.

Most "real" news doesn't happen everyday. If you follow it less often you'll
miss out on most fake stories and the ones that matter will still be around.

If you really want to follow the daily rumor mill you can try Twitter. Don't
follow too many people and you will develop a sense for who's got good calls
and who's total noise. Also many people will actually link to authoritative
evidence/source, unlike most news websites that don't want you to ever leave
their domain.

Generally speaking for everything that news outlets cover Twitter should have
better coverage as that's where all the journalists hang out in the first
place. For things that don't get covered, don't expect Twitter to do much
better.

------
nabla9
If you think Reuters is not unpartisan, your concept is flawed.

Most mainstream news about the US: Reuters, ABC News, USA Today, BBC, Wall
Street Journal (News not Editorial),

You might also want to check sources like
[https://www.allsides.com/](https://www.allsides.com/)

You should also differentiate between news articles and opinion writing. Wapo
and The Times write good analytical articles that are not biased.

~~~
csneeky
I hear you on Reuters maybe that was an unfair inclusion (it is certainly not
sensationalist news) but still...

------
082349872349872
Read politicised news, and actively separate the facts reported from the
editorial stance:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477)

"If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda.
Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."

~~~
csneeky
In that case then maybe the question "Where can I find news that requires the
least amount of cognitive load to consume?" is more appropriate... this is
also a little defeatist.

~~~
082349872349872
Defeatist, maybe. But short of finding an outlet whose editorial slant matches
one's preconceptions, I can't imagine doing better.
[https://ria.ru](https://ria.ru) will reliably run the russian slant.
[https://apnews.com](https://apnews.com) will reliably run the US slant.
[https://www.bbc.com](https://www.bbc.com) may be relatively neutral on US
politics, but internationally it reliably runs an anglophone slant. I don't
read chinese, so I don't know what their equivalent may be, but I'll bet it
runs a chinese slant. (a while ago, I found a website that seems to be running
the north korean slant,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23738281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23738281)
. Even the Amish had, at one point,
[http://www.thebudgetnewspaper.com](http://www.thebudgetnewspaper.com) . It
may be a little while before they notice it's down.)

------
xvedejas
AP and Reuters seem to be alright in my experience, as do some foreign sources
(BBC). AllSides.com provides media bias ratings which pass my sanity filter,
although I won't claim to know how trustworthy a source they are.

[https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-
ratings](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings)

~~~
bediger4000
I don't know how I feel about allsides.com bias ratings. The Economist and The
New York Times (news only) appear in the left-leaning column. The New York
Times (opinion) appears in the solid left column. Given The Economist's solid
advocacy for business and free trade, and Douthat and Brooks and Stephens as
NYT opinion writers, I'm positive this isn't even slightly accurate.

Treating allsides.com as propaganda, as another commenter here has advocated,
I'd have to say that allsides.com is shifted everything left one column, or
maybe more.

~~~
xvedejas
I don't know enough about individual publications to say whether I agree that
their ratings are off, but I do like how allsides allows you to vote on
whether you agree with their ratings[1] -- and I encourage you to. At least
out of their site visitors, there seems to be a decent degree of agreement. I
think what they're trying to do is admirable and it's an extra bit of
legitimacy that they're willing to admit they're not perfect. If there's a
better source for exploring media bias out there, I'm not aware of it.

[1] [https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-
ratings](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings)

~~~
bediger4000
Thank you for pointing that out.

------
keiferski
As already mentioned, basically every news organization has its own bias.

However, I do recommend The Wall Street Journal. They have the biases you’d
imagine, but I’ve found that they’re really only overt in the opinion pages.
The regular reporting is fairly straightforward, unlike say, The New York
Times, which manages to inject its bias into even the most mundane of topics.

------
surds
Politico.com?

I am not American, but follow the politics. The content seems neutral to me
but I haven’t really judged it seriously enough.

------
fulafel
News covering current affairs is inherently political.

