AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Guardian
This helps:
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
29 points (93.9% liked)
Asklemmy
48795 readers
551 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Reuters lied about Maccabi supporters attacking Dutch people instead of the other way around and manufactured fake outrage about pogroms.
Reuters also said they confirmed oct7 rape footage evidence which turned out to be a lie because it does not exist.
None of them have blanket trust. Read each article, dig through half a pound of bullshit to get to the facts behind the click bait headline. Then see if that makes sense. Seek out second source if the topic requires it.
Lemmy shitposts
Dropsitenews
DemocracyNow!
Mintpressnews
Theintercept
KenKlippenstein
Jacobin
Why? Because they have not spread pro Israel propaganda without doing a minute amount fact checking. Or worse, straight up lying for Israel.
There are a few, such as TheGuardian, which have spread massive Israeli propaganda for a year. They have recently turned around tried to put the mask back on. But they have already shown their true face.
None in isolation.
CBC is a pretty reliable go-to although they're more than a bit pandering these days. BBC is similar. Al Jazeera is pretty reliable for things not related to Islam and Palestine in particular (although they're not as biased as they could be). AP is fairly neutral. Aside from that, it's non-legacy Canadian sources like the Walrus and the Tyee, which all have their problems but are good at exposing reality.
There are others, but I'd say these are the top in terms of credibility, investigative journalism, and reliability
That said, it's still best practice to cross verify reporting
The Intercept
Democracy Now
Common Dreams
ProPublica
Mother Jones
Jacobin
Zeteo
Drop Site News
Al Jazeera
+972 Magazine
Human Rights Organizations
Edit: adding Counter Punch
Love em!
None. I get my news from 4chan.
Peoplesdispatch is one I put high trust into but all reporting is inherently biased and should be read with an understanding of its biases. I also like the Al Jazeera and Jacobin but both of those can be hit or miss sometimes. Especially the Jacobin lmao
I ask gemini and take everything it says as 100% fact π
As others have said no one source should have blanket trust.
Understanding the bias the source may have by looking up who owns/funds it and understanding how that might skew what youβre reading is important.
For news based on studies I usually will try to directly to the study which should list the methodology which will help show how well done it was.
If I have time later Iβll put together a list of ones I use and what Iβve seen as their biases.
I don't trust a particular source. I sorta trust GroundNews to at least show me the bias and give me less-overtly-biased alternatives. Otherwise I am more trustful in general (but don't fully trust) investigative journalism orgs like ProPublica, independent journalists like Ken Klippenstein, etc.
I've stopped paying attention to what any regular news source says about anything themselves since it is all basically profit driven and therefore unreliable. Rather I just pay attention to sources where I can see what is said or done from the horses mouth directly, and then pay attention to people's reactions to such things.
These are usually few and far between, but I'm talking about what was written or said by specific persons with the clear source of it coming from their personally verified outlets.
I also wait on this information before thinking too much about it as well because god knows if someone catches something out for being AI generated or a deepfake or what have you in this day and age. After a few days it gains some actual credibility as coming from that person and being the genuine article.
It is also important to still not trust what any one person says about something else as well, or even multiple persons. I can never really trust what is said by anyone as facts anymore - rather this only gives insight into that specific persons opinions on the other thing.
In the face of mountains of clear evidence and individually verified sources from many multiple persons - then and only then can I begin to trust something as fact.
None. When was the last time you saw an actual headline not click-bait?
News is not about issues anymore - since the advent of 24 hr TV last century - It's about filling time until the next exposΓ© about Meghan frigging Markle, or some influencer of zero repute who overdosed.
Why should I trust Ground News, a for-profit company, on what the media biases are?
I get what you're saying. However, their entire business model is predicated on them being impartial. If it turned out that they were biased, their business would collapse.
That's only true up to a certain size. If Ground News ever grows big, they'll still retain enough of a user base regardless of what they're doing. Compare it to e.g. Meta, Google, MS services. Or even X. Many people just never leave once they feel at home there. Meta could do even more disgusting stuff and people would still use WhatsApp, Instagram, and the likes.
BBC
The ABC
Guardian
Democracy Now
CBC
NPR
Basically anyone who is getting removeded at for not towing the line
Democracy now!!! Yas.
Good collection. I like just kinda getting a grasp on what the biase is and holding it loosely.
I like cbc its public etc. Pretty balanced. Yet we also know it is neo-liberal and likely to indulge a bit far on some gender politics etc. I agree, having several outlets is important.
BBC, AP, The Guardian, NYT, NBC, CBC, The Conversation, The Atlantic, Nature.
ABC NBC CBS AP NPR Guardian
Lol
The environmental sensors on my local network.
No single source. I like how Verity collates the facts and the spins from multiple sources across the web.
Ich_iel
BBC and CBC. They're not unbiased, but I haven't found any better.
I extend more trust if I see consistent stories across multiple sources. If one is reporting something and no one else is, I question why.
The Guardian
The Conversation is great, though they don't necessarily cover headlines. They look at got topics and interview experts. It's about making a bridge between science and journalism.
Make sure you check out Fair.org too!
Trust no one. Using the framework of Noam chomskys manufacturing consent to help identify biases and read between the lines is a pretty good strategy though.
I dont watch international news but in germany, taz amd ND are pretty good. Best track record international i found is 404 media.
Fox News says The Gulf of Mexico is now The Gulf of America. I trust that they said it. Same as any other organization. They said X. That's about it. The real selfish, honest truth, unless if effects me personally or will cause me to act, I really don't care.
Trust to be accurate or trust to be unbiased? I trust the hyperlocal paper to be unbiased but the articles are all over the place. I trust most large publications to be accurate but with their articles and editorials in line with the paper's overall bias.
NPR, NYT, BBC. I have my criticisms, but seldom are these sources factually incorrect.