Unbiased news never existed and never will

No such thing. Get multiple biased sources that agree on the facts but not the interpretation and make up your own mind

I follow NYTimes to learn what the big money wants to talk about and ProPublica to learn what the big money doesn't want to talk about. Between the two of them, I think I stay decently well informed. In theory, I could know all things if I read them enough.

No such thing as unbiased news. Even Associated Press and Reuters make decisions about what to report on. Those are two solid choices too, by the way. Pretty flat and even-handed.

Ground.news is my go-to source, and they have a very useful blind spot feature which specifically shows you stories you might not be aware of based on your political leanings

All news is biased. Every time someone writes something down, it has a perspective to it that provides a selective view of the truth. There's no such thing as purely objective. The closest you can get is to aggregate multiple sources on any news worth your time. I find Ground News useful for this because it makes it convenient to look at multiple sources sorted by bias and then draw your own conclusion. Rather than trusting people not to make a straw-man out of opposing views it helps to hear what people actually think in their own words. You might even learn something, although I know no one really enjoys finding out their opponent actually has a point.

Closest I can think of is a news aggregation service like ground news...but as a user of theirs, there is still bias...it's just "their bias".

It presents you with how they rank different news outlets on political alignment and factuality...which itself is a problem....it's how they rank it. You may rank it differently.

They also provide a summary and headline for all stories, which itself could be editorialized. And getting a push with an editorialized headline can easily prime your reaction to it.

Still, it's the best I've seen, and I gladly renewed.

Fact is you will never truly get rid of bias. It will always exist. Best you can do is examine multiple sources with known biases in mind going into it.

According to https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive there are a few that are nearly unbiased.

I use the chart to review sources as I come across them. It's where I realized The Week is the lefty version of The Epoch Times.

You don’t.

All news has biases. You find sources that are pretty good, and get to know the motives; and just read critically.

Tons of sources that are compromised in one area or aspect have excellent reporting in another.

YMMV, but I found https://apnews.com/ pretty good. I haven't really looked at news sites for a few years, so I apologise if this site actually sucks now.

Kagi News is interesting in this reguard. All news has a bias. The general advice is to read multiple sources and filter out the bias and make your own conclusions.

Kagi News uses an LLM to scan lots of sources, and distills common stories for that day down to the straight facts for you. It also links to the sources it used and gives timelines for context. It doesn't talor anything to individual users. Once a day it updates, and gives everyone the same news for that day.

Since it's paid for by Kagi users, it has no adds. It's a simple streamlined interface. I quite like it.

Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel... Colbert used to be a good one but they assassinated the show.

Reuters and AP (Associated Press) have long been well regarded as being generally neutral.

https://apnews.com/

https://www.reuters.com/

Others have mentioned Reuters and the AP. I'd also suggest the Financial Times and The Economist; they're quite expensive but you get what you pay for. The BBC isn't too bad actually - it's obviously very British-focused and can be a bit wet, but they usually get the facts right and they do try hard to avoid favouring any given political viewpoint. Al Jazeera is also surprisingly good.

https://www.democracynow.org/

You can use media bias watchdog sites to find the closest balance you want. I like Reuters mostly because it's just the facts and no editorialized filler. They quote the quotes and tell the events without telling the reader how they should feel about it

I usually watch the facts being reported and then tune out once all of the talking heads are discussing said facts. Always try to get more than one set of facts from more than one source to make sure the facts are similarly solid, regardless of the noisy opinions about the facts. At the end of the day it's up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. Don't get fooled like Roger Daltrey did.

There's certainly degrees of bias, but even the very choice in what to cover is a bias. The real question is if they're honestly presenting the relevant facts, and are clear about what's their own opinion.

Agendafreetv with Steverino, the only thing he is biased towards is his air fryer breaks.

CounterSpin from the media watch group FAIR is always a good place to pick up on bias in the MSM. Janine is great.

Of course, FAIR may have their own bias which, as far as i can tell, is "the good of the people".

You can get news from just about any source, but the trick is this: the only real information is in the discrepancy between what they say and what you would have expected them to say based on their past reporting and other sources.

Before you read an article from a known source, try to anticipate what the broad strokes will be. If the article matches your expectation, you’ve learned nothing and can ignore it. If they say something unexpected, it’s because they encountered something unexpected and are trying to accommodate it. So figure out what would make them change their story as they have—that’s the actual news.