deleted by creator
Here’s a chart that I’ve found really helpful. Predictably, it’s drawn some criticism, but in my experience, it’s been very accurate.
Except they daily mail is well known as a heavily right leaning paper for years. So I wouldn’t take that images accuracy to heart
BBC News. They do a fairly good job of being impartial since both main party voters here in the UK hate it and accuse it of being biased to the opposition!
Isn’t it populated in the highest echelons by Tories who ensure the government is given an easy ride?
No it’s full of labour lovers!
The Economist. Despite the insufferable name, it’s really quite good. It’s one of the only traditional publications that I actively pay for and read weekly.
Yeah, agreed, it’s pretty good.
Same here. Outside of if their Fuck Russia coverage (which isn’t unearned) or the viewpoint of a noble wanting to actually understand what is going on with the masses, it is pretty good.
DW news (dw.com) is pretty good and not too sensational. They’re like German PBS with a whole English side of the site.
Thanks for dw.com. It looks like a keeper.
NPR
PBS
AP
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
lmao half the page is grayzone and RT. the only good thing about that place is knowing who to block tbh.
Never heard of greyzone, but what you say is not true. Sorting by “Top” shows The Guardian, Reuters, Aljazeera, etc. The coverage is spread between many sources.
You are overlooking the links that are obfuscated through archive.org and archive.ph. The default sort algorithm for that page on lemmygrad.ml is Active. Of the 40 links on that page, 7 are for rt.com and 2 are for grayzone. So 9/40 or 22.5% of the page is well-known propaganda and conspiracy theory outlets. I’m not even clicking through the links to the lesser-known outlets that are, in all likelihood, also conspiracy theorists and authoritarian propaganda.
If you haven’t heard of grayzone I imagine you are still new to the tankieverse, so it isn’t too late for you to leave before becoming fully indoctrinated and delusional.
lol it’s really not hard to learn information literacy. There are plenty of communists that appreciate leftist news but are not tankies.
I get a weekly email from Ground.News and it’s been pretty interesting to see the distribution of sources covering various stories. I’ve never personally mused on the leanings of various sources but it passes the eye test I think, and it helps give a good aggregation of perspectives on a story.
https://ground.news/ is a pretty good resource. It’s a news aggregate that also reveals the source’s/writer’s political biases as a percentage of left or right. Also it’s factuality versus editorialization, and who owns the outlet.
Definitely one of the better ones out there.
I don’t really read news in English anymore, but when I did, I subscribed to the economist. I found most other news sites were too biased and ignored most of the world.
Ground.news They label bias both left, right, ans center. Blindspots, which are things that are only bring shown to one side of the political spectrum. Not sure how effective they are outside the US, tho.
NYT. But of course, as with any source, remain critical and check for retractions/corrections.
heise online
What country do you live in?
USA
Oh sorry, there I have no idea unfortunately but I‘d go with /u/wilberfan‘s comment
Could also be interesting to go with TheGuardian UK. Quite fascinating to see an “outside” view of events incountry.
I’m fortunate to live in an area with good local independent news sources like Berkeleyside.
National & international are a big mess. Better to look at lots of different sources. If the Wall Street Journal, Al-Jazeera, and The Grauniad all talk about an event, it probably happened.
