Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp
Advertisement

This is a world where money seems to have such control over journalistic integrity. Is there no place for the reader to turn for unbiased news? The short answer is an emphatic yes.

There’s still hope.

When it comes to “censorship”, news can be censored either by the over-reach of government entities, or by a corporate stranglehold on the editorial processes of news organizations.

It could be an angle placed on news stories about state organizations or policies that are financed by state leadership themselves. There is no better example of this than the Xinhua News Agency – the mouthpiece of the Peoples Republic of China, or TASS, the news agency owned by the Russian government.

However, the U.S. isn’t innocent either. In the U.S., those controlling the journalists’ pens are corporate leaders rather than government leaders. In the U.S., there are six corporate media giants that own 90% of the U.S. media market —  GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. It would be naive of anyone to believe that the people writing the paychecks for those reporting the news don’t hold some sway over what news gets reported, and how it gets reported.

This was especially apparent during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Media corporate owners contributed significant campaign contributions to their favored candidates on one hand, while on the other they published news stories with a positive spin for their own favored candidate. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New Yorker, and The Blaze are just a few examples.

Advertisement

So are there still any unbiased news sources? Thankfully, there are.

News Site #1: The Associated Press

The Associated Press founded in 1846, is a renowned global news organization with 52 Pulitzer Prizes under its belt. It is and has always been the epitome of clear and unbiased global journalism and reporting. It is actually where most journalists seek out their own news stories to report on.

John Daniszewski for the AP wrote a piece about fake news on social media titled “Getting the facts right“. He cited a memo sent out to AP staff by Social Media Editor Eric Carvin where Eric wrote:

“The language we use: Whenever possible, we want to emphasize specifics rather than generalizations or labels. Let’s say what we know to be true and what is false, based on our reporting.”

This is the very definition of unbiased that I’ve used as my own litmus test in this article when picking a news organization in the top 5.

ap-page

Again, politics make the best gauge. On the AP’s front page today, you’ll find one story detailing holes in Trump’s pick for intelligence chief, and another story calling into question President Obama’s presidential legacy. This is the sign of an organization that doesn’t only paint rainbows for one side, while drawing storm clouds for the other.

News Site #2: Wall Street Journal

While you probably won’t find far-right Conservatives praising Wall Street Journal as the premier news source of the year, you also won’t find a lot of left-leaning Liberals celebrating this organization as the best source for news either. Wall Street Journal is well known for reporting the news as it is. It serves a healthy dose of reality from both sides of the political spectrum. It isn’t likely you’ll see a Wall Street Journal White House correspondent trading blows with Trump in the Press Room like what happened recently between Trump and CNN.

The reason for this isn’t because WSJ loves our current president. It’s because you won’t often find antagonistic stories on the front page that are lambasting either side. They explain what’s happening, who’s doing it and why, without excessive editorializing or using emotion-ridden terminology.

WSJ journalists tell it like it is, without letting their own biases (or the biases of the corporate ownership) filter down into the story. This isn’t an easy thing to accomplish with any news organization. For a clear contrast to this, take one quick look at the front page of a newer, more amateur news organization like Buzzfeed.

A similar contrast can be made with Fox News, the bastion of Conservative news reporting.

This isn’t just political bias in the media. Other sites that lack journalistic integrity like this are usually overtly nationalistic (overly pro-American — posting negative news headlines about other countries), or blatantly anti-American (like British news sources that produce a fresh batch of anti-gun editorials in response to every major shooting event that happens in the U.S. – the Guardian is guilty of this quite often).

It’s the inherent bias not only in the journalist’s own writing, but also that of the editorial leadership and the news organization’s owners, that highlights the lack of journalistic integrity of those organizations as a whole.

If you become a reader of the Wall Street Journal, you’ll find yourself more often better-informed, and less often offended or annoyed by the journalist’s choice of words.

Google News

Google News isn’t so much a news organization as it is a collection of news sources generated at least partially by a news-gathering algorithm, similar to how Google runs its flagship search engine. It is partially managed by human editors as well, but the reason Google News is listed here isn’t because the headlines are especially unbiased. It’s listed because of how little human intervention there is in developing front page headlines.

This usually results in a listing of headlines that may not be entirely free from left or right leaning headlines. But you’ll at least discover a healthy mix of each side. Google News will often cite smaller websites and blogs, when the news reporting there is especially well-done. This flies in the face of the rest of mainstream media outlets trying to claim that anything other than corporate-controlled media conglomerates might contain “fake news”.

If you believe that no single news organization can be completely free of intrinsic bias, then Google News gives you a place where you can at least see the news reported from the entire spectrum. That’s a great way to get the whole picture, no matter what the news event may be.

BBC

When I came to terms with the fact that U.S. media outlets were pandering so much to both corporate and government interests, I started searching outside of the U.S. for untainted news sources to get my daily dose. One of the first websites I came to appreciate was the BBC.

As just one example of the integrity of this news organization, related to the alleged Trump dossier, the BBC wrote:

“All major media outlets have stressed that the report’s allegations are unsubstantiated. Several, including the BBC, had knowledge of the claims before the election but were unable to verify them and therefore did not publish stories.”

This is in stark contrast to this is Buzzfeed, which published the entire dossier without bothering to conduct any sort of research into the claims contained therein.

Publishing juicy gossip in a race to scoop a story is the sign of an amateur news organization. Verifying claims before publication is one of the core principles of journalism. This is just one example of how the BBC passes the “bias” test. Their front page is another.

If you want to know what’s going on in the world, the BBC is the place to go. You will find better information than the same stories at a U.S. news site. It may seem ironic that U.S. news organizations appear far more censored and filled with pro-government propaganda than British news organizations. These days, U.S. foreign policy includes so much government cooperation with corporate U.S. news media. So, the only alternative for Americans (or anyone for that matter), is to turn to foreign news sources for the whole story.

Maybe (hopefully) this will change for the better, but for now this is the only option Americans have.

Reuters

The news organization Reuters deserves honorable mention on this list for the same reasons as the BBC, and more. News events on this site, even those about U.S. shootings, are written with some of the most straightforward reporting that I’ve seen anywhere.

On the front page, you’ll find political stories that could be considered both pro-Trump or anti-Trump. Read world stories on controversial hot-topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that don’t appear to take one side or another. Headlines cover insights from every end of the spectrum.

This is especially refreshing at a time when this kind of journalistic reporting is so rare. If you want to bookmark only one website on this list of five, I would suggest bookmarking this one. You will get fair and balanced perspective on all important matters in the world today.

Bonus Mentions:

There are a few additional news organizations in the world today that deserve mention. They were not included in the list above because sometimes these sites let their biases show through. C-Span and Pew Research aren’t specifically news organizations. But they deserve mention as fantastic resources to learn the deeper truth behind today’s news stories.

  • Al Jazeera — Once, my frustrations with the U.S. news media led to swearing off places like CNN and MSNBC. I started looking at a few unexpected sources. I found Al Jazeera. Based out of Qatar, it is quite different from America, where “freedom of the press” is sacrosanct. However, Al Jazeera lives up to the “impartial, fact-based reporting” as it touts on its About Us page. I’m stunned as an American that I would prefer an Arabic news source above American ones. That’s the reality of the world today.
  • C-Span — Watch government hearings and other events on your own, instead of relying on second-hand reporting. Keep your TV tuned to C-Span. You’ll actually be shocked to discover just how much those second-hand journalists twist what was actually said at those hearings. So why depend on those faulty reports when you can see for yourself?
  • NPR — I would have placed NPR in the primary list of unbiased news sources, till the U.S. election year. Unfortunately, during the Democratic primaries, NPR revealed itself to be as biased as the rest of the U.S. mainstream — serving as just another mouthpiece for the DNC. This was disappointing. However, in the majority of cases, NPR reporting is about as impartial and factual as you could ask for from a U.S.-based news organization.
  • Christian Science Monitor — Despite a name that would make you expect it to be a bastion of Conservative news reporting like The Blaze, CSMonitor is actually a refreshingly honest and impartial news source. You’ll find stories here that attack or support government policies from both sides of the aisle. For a U.S. based news source, that is exceedingly rare.
  • Pew Research — Interested in the facts, and only the facts? You can’t go wrong bookmarking Pew Research. Even during heated election years, you’ll find the polls, surveys, and research conducted by this organization to be accurate and truthful. It is self-described as a “nonpartisan fact tank”, and that’s exactly what it is. Don’t get your facts from Facebook. Look to Pew Research to get accurate facts before you make up your mind.

What Bias Really Means

These days, you’ll find anyone who disagrees with a news story angle calling it “biased”. Conservatives hate CNN and MSNBC. Liberals hate Fox News and The Blaze. Everyone in the middle hates them all. So how can you really call any news organization “unbiased”, when so often bias itself is subjective?

Every journalist is aware of the nine principles of journalism. The first says that a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth.

This ‘journalistic truth’ is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation.

The ability to set aside one’s own prejudices in order to be “neutral” is not a part of those principles. However,”the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness, and ability to inform”. When journalists let personal biases hinder their objectivity, it puts the entire media organization at risk. Thankfully there are still enough media outlets that uphold these principles.

So, which news sources do you choose? Do you follow any of those mentioned here, or do you have some favorites of your own? Feel free to share your opinion in the comments section below.

Image Credit: Yavuz Sariyildiz via Shutterstock

Originally written by Ryan Dube on Feb 3rd, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Rick
    June 23, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Google!?! Are you kidding me? If it wasn't for the Washington Post, New York Times, and Huffington Post (ALL BS Liberal Sites) reposts, Google News wouldn't show anything but ads.

  2. Stuart Robertson
    June 21, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    You lost every ounce of respect I was starting to have for you as soon as I saw the letters BBC.... You MUST BE JOKING. They are the Tory government puppets, try talking to anyone who knows ANYTHING about the Scottish Independence Vote in 2014 and the media bias, they can show you HOURS of evidence of them lying their assess off to push the NO agenda at the behest of the Tory government. Try doing some proper research first bro, seriously...

    • realistic_bstd
      June 24, 2017 at 6:00 pm

      BBC are Tory puppets??? What world are you living in mate? BBC is the most liberal news site I ever seen, there are many stories they'll never show from obvious reasons. There are no free from censorship aka biased news websites. They will always shows editors point of view.

  3. K Alfred
    June 7, 2017 at 12:51 am

    Since a quick search showed that both Viacom and CBS are owned by National Amusements, your list gets shorter. I'm sure it's shorter than that too. Also if you believe that Jews don't control the media do a little research with a lot of critical thinking and don't worry about the "you're right" it is worth it to open eyes.

  4. Danny
    June 2, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Ridiculous. All MSM. How about Zerohedge, Global Research, Sott, Unz,Truthdig, RT and a zillion others.

  5. Jason Hamilton
    May 29, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    Quite depressed by this list. If you seriously think the BBC is unbiased, then you are either I'll informed or worse....
    .....for example, since Trumps election, nearly every BBC news 'story' is from the angle of arguments being raised -largely by the Democrates- AGAINST him?! This is precisely why, the common man or woman are LOSING FAITH IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Seth rich has to my knowledge NEVER even been mentioned on the BBC! yet almost DAILY, they bring up the 'Russian rigged elections'! Objective reporting?!
    When several children are killed in an English city by Islamists, the BBC had wall to wall coverage on all it's outlets for around a week. When MORE Christians were killed a few days later by ISIS in an attack in Egypt, it was barely mentioned? Balanced coverage?
    I believe future generations will condemn and be ashamed of the mainstream media of our time. Like the Pharisees at the time of Christ, they hold the places of power and influence, priding themselves on their 'integrity' yet crucifying those whose world view differs from their own, in the name of 'CHOICE', 'EQUALITY', 'COMPASSION'; turning a blind eye to the killing of the innocent and vulnerable, behind closed doors of centre's of choice or 'Dignity' or vilifying those Christians or people of good will who challenge their dominance. Just look at the way they cover stories on Julian Assange or Snowdon, always focusing on 'allegations' in their coverage! I call it calumny and detraction. I didn't hear much talk of allegations, when Obama was president!

  6. Alan Hales
    May 29, 2017 at 9:00 am

    A thought provoking piece, but we're not going to all agree with the conclusions are we. I agree that Al Jazeera is one of the most trustworthy news outlets. I am no fan of what the Middle East stands for, but you have to see beyond the superficial and take the time to watch and then I think you'll see that Al Jazeera really tries to be balanced and do the research. Maybe strange but true.

    As for the BBC, they are fast becoming on a par with Fox, for a number of reasons:
    (1) They are terrified of controversy and are the epitome of political correctness.
    (2) They are the definition of nepotism and cronyism (e.g. self-obsessed David Dimbleby and pseud-intellectual Alan Yentob) and so many sub-standard presenters now, though still some titans such as Kate Adie, John Simpson and Lyse Doucet.
    (3) They push weakly researched, shallow stories and perpetuate celebrity culture.
    (4) They are a political football because they are funded by a tax, but don't listen to Murdoch's snipes at the BBC, all he wants is to flood us with more of his sewage.

    Trump, Brexit and Farage are the serious consequences of having such awful news. The people react in a nasty cocktail of ignorance and frustration to act like turkeys voting for Christmas.

    Don't see a solution coming our way soon, some see through the garbage, but sadly the future is in the hands of a powerful and corrupt elite backed by the mass of ignorant, lazy minded and bigoted populous.

  7. gpc
    May 25, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    You are right about AL Jazeera--it is an excellent news source. Very professional and demonstrated high ethical standards.

  8. Patrick
    May 20, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Hmmm...google news?? And NPR as an honorable mention????
    I am dumbfounded that either of these "unbiased" new sources made your list. One of the compelling reasons for my search to find an unbiased news source was the inherent bias google news stories have against conservatives. Throughout the election campaign and before, and even more so in the present, google's search algorithms are blatantly designed to exclude stories that take either a positive or benign spin on the current administration or conservatism as a whole. EVERY SINGLE story regarding President Trump or conservative values and ideologies in general that appear on google news or NPR are disgustingly and openly biased, and their inclusion on your list makes me doubt your own "unbiased" integrity.

    • MG
      May 26, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      Totally agree. I do not thing much of NPR or PB (WGBH, WBUR etc) because of their bias. they used to be independant of govt funding and it was good then. Now just like all the others.

    • MG
      May 26, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      Totally agree!

  9. Larry
    May 15, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Thank You for this article.

    I was looking to add to my rss feeds that I skim through everyday.

    There are some big trolls in the comments and on behalf of the rest of us. I would like to apologize.

    I would also like to add that I found this helpful.

    http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

    I'm more a a moderate/centrist. So, I'm comfortable using more varied news sources. I believe the more unbiased news sources you read the better picture you get. In this case, I believe more is well.... more...

    If anyone has something similar but with more international sources I would appreciate it. I like to try and get a world view on things.

    Thanks again

    • MG
      May 26, 2017 at 10:20 pm

      RT - rt.com

  10. robert barton
    May 14, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    I'm glad I had my boots on while reading this article.

  11. Ally
    May 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    This is a joke right?! All UK media outlets are not only biased but are happily brainwashing the ignorant into believing whatever best supports the political agenda. They edit photos and videos and i have even seen them deliberately amend translation subtitles etc to change speeches etc.

  12. ynaija
    May 5, 2017 at 5:46 am

    YNaija is the internet newspaper for young Nigerians, focused on the issues and ideas that matter for an evolving generation.

  13. Andy
    May 5, 2017 at 12:20 am

    Hang on - written in 2010? Why is this still circulating???

  14. Andy
    May 5, 2017 at 12:19 am

    Bbc? I came here to find a worthy answer but...bbc..mare you freakin kidding me????

  15. yankee
    April 22, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    The list is good EXCEPT for the The Associated Press which is allegedly spreading the leftists agenda.

    Total garbage.

  16. egor
    April 13, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    Google is biased? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! Their "algorithm" only generated left-wing biased news from the likes of Washinton Post, NY Times, etc...

  17. Jim
    April 6, 2017 at 1:23 am

    AP? You are kidding, right?

  18. Ali
    March 21, 2017 at 4:05 am

    If anyone truly wants an unbiased news site check out "News Deeply"

  19. Pat
    March 8, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    Lol BBC unbiased.

    That's a laugh!!

    Brittany Pettibone? @BrittPettibone

    Interesting how the BBC uses "Muslim" when it fits the narrative and "Indian Athlete" when it does not.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/839147097664344064
    11:13 AM · Mar 7, 2017
    716 RETWEETS
    925 LIKES

  20. Bart S
    March 7, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    Looks like you're in cahoots with the rest of them, Bud.
    Goodbye forever.

  21. DAVID
    March 6, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    THANK YOU.

  22. Oliver
    March 5, 2017 at 11:19 am

    This piece is a classic example of dishonest reporting. To cite the BBC as fair and unbiased is as warped as one can get. Dube is more than a dubious reporter!

  23. iain
    March 1, 2017 at 8:47 pm

    Pahahahahahahahaha... the BBC unbiased! Next you'll be saying they didn't know what Jimmy Savile was up to!!

  24. Des Paul
    February 28, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    I know right? Is this dude serious? The sites quoted are the very definition of global corporate fascist propaganda! I mean how dull do these dullards think the rest of us are? The people aren't falling for your intelligence service infiltrated fake disinformation any longer. Don't you see? You guys are finished & are so self deluded that you're the last to know...lmfao at your very assertion the above "news" services are even relevant any longer. One more time for the dummies. These guys are OVER! Lololol

  25. Tracy
    February 22, 2017 at 11:16 am

    I would remove Wall Street Journal from the list looking at the way they're attacked Pewdiepie aka. Felix Kjellberg. If you disagree with me you should 1. Watch his videos on the matter as well as some of his content videos for context on his humour and how the media, including WSJ have targeted Felix. 2, Watch Philip Defranco on this issue on YouTube, a very non partisan commentator who has insightful context on the YouTube industry as well Felix and his career.

    Excuse the mini-rant, I'm just very disappointed with the WSJ and no longer trust their judgment.

  26. Nope. Not sharing name.
    February 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Lies. WallStreetJournal is left wing, FAR LEFT WING. BBC and Al Jazerra are left wing too. Reuters is left wing. This is left wing too. Like CNN. Trash and false information

    • dave
      April 18, 2017 at 8:04 am

      Earth to NOPE earth to NOPE... I am sorry, no one is home.
      what a load of crap dude.

  27. M J Bailey
    February 13, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    The BBC?? The British Bullshit Corporation? Reuters???? Are you for real? What a load of complete tosh.

  28. Clayton Guglielmo
    February 9, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    good day, your site is really unquie. Anways, i do appreciate your work

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4jzx6nQQRQ

  29. Josef Correy
    February 9, 2017 at 10:28 am

    After study a number of the blog articles on the internet site now, we really appreciate your method of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site list and are checking back soon. Pls have a look at my web page in addition and figure out what you believe.

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab2xhYLoJkw

  30. peedeeriverpatriot
    February 8, 2017 at 3:03 am

    what a load of garbage this article is. Wow, there is truly no source of unbiased just plain facts of events. Time for the Wikipedia of news, I say.

  31. Arturo Redinger
    February 7, 2017 at 8:53 am

    you can say that alternative medicine is cheaper too and usually comes from natural sources;

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbb7VGRGSNY

  32. Derick Argrave
    February 7, 2017 at 6:21 am

    I’d need to verify with you here. Which is not one thing I usually do! I take pleasure in reading a submit that will make individuals think. Additionally, thanks for permitting me to remark!

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab2xhYLoJkw

  33. Sacha Barkins
    February 7, 2017 at 1:21 am

    this song make sme cry, because my ex boyfriend sent me this when we were fighting….i would have done suicide that night i listened to this

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIWyLbVlSE

  34. Jule Pedder
    February 6, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    i can’t believe this critically nicely played. “”fire! fireplace!”\" “”hopefully your current water will bust soon! put that will out there!”\" hahahahahah.

    |https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIWyLbVlSE

  35. John Smith
    February 6, 2017 at 9:11 am

    This article must be satire.
    Other wise, why would someone even remotely list NPR, BBC, and Al -Jazeera?
    Oh, and google news, google annouced they are going to 'fitler fake news' which means censorship of things they don't agree with.

    I would suggest the author thinks about the headline and then take another look at the content. Too late for that now I guess.

    • Joan Miller
      February 8, 2017 at 12:36 am

      Clearly you need to read the article; this is explained.

      • ohn Smith
        February 8, 2017 at 4:07 am

        Actually did YOU even read the article?
        Here, let me help
        Article headline.
        "Top 5 World News Websites Guaranteed Free From Censorship"

        Then lists google (for example, I am not going to explain every news source for you, do your own homework), and that has

        "If you believe that no single news organization can be completely free of intrinsic bias, then Google News gives you a place where you can at least see the news reported from the entire spectrum. That’s a great way to get the whole picture, no matter what the news event may be."

        So where is his explanation about Google? In fact not only he is defending and promoting them, he does not see to be aware that they announced they will filter news. Now added to the fact that Eric Schmidt is a liberal activist and was on the Hillary Clinton campaign, that makes them not credible .

        Next time, before you accuse others of not reading the article, try reading the article yourself and after that do some research, you'll avoid looking uninformed like this.

        • user
          May 9, 2017 at 10:13 pm

          As a user of Google news for some time I have noticed the profound difference between the sources that used to be included in any politically important news events and the very restricted sources that Goog News now deems to be appropriate news sources. Remember that Snowden disclosed that Goog is a "partner" with the NSA and as such not only tracks (and archives) who you are but what you are interested in. 1984 anybody?

  36. TRUTH
    February 6, 2017 at 3:11 am

    Yes unbaised - search for Maria Ladenburger on any of these - nothing to see here

  37. Abstract
    February 1, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    Everyone in the comments are just saying every news site ever is bias lol. Seems like everyone just has a subjective viewpoint.

    Instead of complaining....how about you guys list you unbias news sources.

    • John Smith
      February 6, 2017 at 9:12 am

      "Instead of complaining....how about you guys list you unbias news sources."
      Then you will be complaining about what we list.

    • Joanne
      March 15, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      Thank you for the suggestion. I was thinking the same thing. We both know that perpetual critics with no original thought of their own will reply.

    • Patrick
      May 20, 2017 at 12:30 pm

      Seriously? If we had a darned source do you think we would be searching for one???? You are just as gullible as the rest of the imbeciles who go marching off to death camps, all the while singing, "Oh What A Beautiful Morning!"....

  38. Steve Scheiber
    February 1, 2017 at 2:59 am

    Another honorable mention is The Economist. It is not exactly balanced reporting but it is intelligent, comprehensive, and pathologically fair about most issues.

    • Cuda77
      February 19, 2017 at 4:28 pm

      Good point
      Economist has good global info

  39. LONGLIVETRUMP
    January 26, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    LOL and NPR??? FU so hard

    • Ryan Dube
      February 2, 2017 at 12:08 am

      Well you're a pleasant fellow, aren't ya? :-)

      • ohn Smith
        February 8, 2017 at 4:09 am

        He could have said it better, but he is right. NPR? Really?
        Anyone who was paying close attention to them know for fact their are a leftist cesspool.

  40. LONGLIVETRUMP
    January 26, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    google and bbc? yeah. this article is trash after you put those two. FU for being what you espouse as objective. FU

  41. Janos
    January 22, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    Is this a joke!

  42. Ron Jonez
    January 20, 2017 at 10:09 am

    Bbc and unbiased do not go hand in hand.

    Watch a programme called Question Time and you'll see how they treat certain politicians.

  43. WillD
    January 19, 2017 at 4:30 am

    The Intercept

    • jim brown
      January 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      no such thing without censorship news agencies are payed well by who? and for what? no profit in truth look everybody go find a way to make money respect others and you will go far in what ever you do.

  44. Will
    January 18, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Did this article just get censored?
    Because yesterday the 5 sites mentioned were:
    1. The Independent
    2. TheRealNews
    3. Independent Media Center
    4. World News Network (www.wn.com)
    5. AlterNet

    • KW
      January 23, 2017 at 8:19 am

      I saw that too. Very odd.

      • Ryan Dube
        February 2, 2017 at 12:10 am

        It actually had many more than that. If you look at the bottom of the article you'll see that the article was originally written in 2010, and updated this year to make it more accurate. I was the original author, and the one who updated it. I'm afraid most of the original sites listed were far too left-leaning to be considered completely unbiased. The ones listed now are at least, a majority of the time, in the center and generally publish fair and balanced news.

        • Cuda77
          February 19, 2017 at 4:30 pm

          Wall st
          Reuter
          Ap
          Do pretty good

  45. ahmad
    January 18, 2017 at 5:24 am

    BBC= British brainwashing Center.
    what is the proof that you your site is authentic.

  46. Kirk R
    January 17, 2017 at 7:39 am

    So according to this guy, Ryan Dube, the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp the parent company of Fox News and owned by Rupert Murdoch is "unbiased," National Public Radio, meanwhile, is an organization run by a public board, receives funding from multiple Government and Private sources, and (I know this because I have a good friend who is an NPR producer at the state station level) reporters are not allowed to endorse or campaign for a candidate privately, even to the point of being banned from putting up a yard sign at their home.

    But NPR is biased because Mr. Dube "thought" he heard bias during the 2016 campaign? There were numerous broadcasts about rural voter interests, taking to Trump supporters as well as Hillary supporters. I find it baffling that he talks about bias due to corporate ownership and then completely ignores NewsCorp and WSJ's conservative slant.

    NPR is good as is the Washington Post, AP (as he points out).

    But really it is up to us to read multiple sources and understand how to verify claims.

    • robert mackie
      January 17, 2017 at 4:02 pm

      You are less likely to hear bias if you share a similar bias. I've listened to NPR for twenty years, and for the first fifteen thought it was extremely unbiased, but over the last five years I have tuned my perception to hear outrageous bias. The difference between NPR, and Fox news is that the bias of NPR journalists is more intelligently, and subtly delivered. if you listened to NPR radio with me, I could break each and every show down to reveal tremendous bias.

      I still listen to the NPR a lot, but it's definitely not the experience I remember having fifteen years ago.

      • David Anderson
        February 4, 2017 at 7:35 pm

        Good analysis sir, I pretty much agree with you.

      • John Smith
        February 6, 2017 at 9:14 am

        So bias is good as long as you agree with it.
        Oh, and you are another liberal with Fox News derangement syndrome.

    • robert mackie
      January 19, 2017 at 6:14 pm

      If you fail to see the bias of NPR it's most likely because you share that bias.

      here's an example from just a few minutes ago...
      I just heard a story about illegal immigrants who have applied for asylum, but were rejected. They must have called them "undocumented immigrants" a dozen times in a five minute span. They are not undocumented. If they applied for asylum, they have entire folders of documentation, but all of those are documentation that they are illegal immigrants.

      Why would they keep chanting "undocumented immigrants" which is blatantly inaccurate? Obviously because NPR is on a mission to generate sympathy for them because they've taken a political position that we should allow all illegal immigrants who are here to stay here. This is evidenced by the dozens and dozens of other stories about illegal immigrants on NPR. All of which paint a one-sided picture designed to sway opinion. That reflects extreme political bias. But most people who feel similarly would not even recognize the bias.

      This is simply one subject. I would argue that every single story they represent is similarly biased, and that if you do not notice it, it's because you share that bias.

    • Ryan Dube
      February 2, 2017 at 12:13 am

      You must have misunderstood. I actually have included NPR on this list of unbiased media sources, however did not place it on the primary list because of the slight bias revealed during the Democratic primaries. But since that was a rarity, NPR remains on the list as a good source of (generally) fair and balanced journalism.

  47. Howard A Pearce
    January 16, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    "This is a world where money seems to have such control over journalistic integrity. Is there no place for the reader to turn for unbiased news? The short answer is an emphatic yes."
    "When it comes to “censorship”, news can be censored either by the over-reach of government entities, or by a corporate stranglehold on the editorial processes of news organizations."

    ?

    Is the write implying that fake news only occurs when censorship is involved ? They are two totally different subjects.
    Of course that makes for an easier reasoning of how fake news is determined. Merely filter out the one involved in censorship.
    Of course that totally overlooks uncensored site and news sources that purposefully lie without censorship.

    This logic fails to explain what fake news is and how it is determined by sloughing it off on censorship as the source.

    what is fake and not fake will always be a personal decision based upon the sources the person chooses to trust - and not some god-like entity that will determine what is fake or not for us.

  48. Ivan Durakov
    January 16, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    Maybe free from censorship in the sense that one organization posts and another filters, but not free from the fake news of oligarchs wishing to sway public opinion based on something other than facts. BBC is at the top of that list as the number one George Soros lapdog.

  49. Alex
    January 8, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    AlterNet is very anti Trump and so am I. However, I wouldn't call AlterNet unbiased! I'm looking for a news source to show me both sides of every story. Unfortunately, I have yet to find such a news source.

  50. JG
    January 3, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    The Independent is biased as anything, awful site.

  51. Kanik
    December 26, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Add to the list. Adractive news app. provides news with all different views to keep it unbiased and provides a short background / history of news as well

  52. Sam
    December 17, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    I hear everyone griping and condemning that all these news sources are biased, but no one posting their unbiased sources. So, what sources do you think are unbiased news sources? Post links, or info the leads to those sources, and let's see what you've got, so it can be held up to scrutiny. Anyone?
    Why not post your unbiased sources instead of just condemning and dismissing? ...Or is it that YOU'RE just as biased, if not more? Waiting...

  53. Matthew Bright
    December 5, 2016 at 9:35 am

    The Independent is not in any way, shape or form independent. It is a well known left-leaning liberal newspaper in the UK. It seems you were hoodwinked by the fact it had "independent" in it's name. From your list it's obvious you are left-leaning yourself so have chosen equally left-leaning news outlets like The Independent and Alternet because they fit your world view. That's the opposite of being independent, it's dogmatic. Your simply reinforcing your own belief system.

  54. Mary
    November 24, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    I read the entire article and was ready to trust this guy....then I click on one of his links and it brought me directly to amazon site to buy a firestick. Done here

  55. David
    November 18, 2016 at 6:37 am

    I gave your website a chance. While in search of factual news, I learned that the first three articles I read were totally false. What a disappointment. I am from the fourth planet in Alpha Centauri and must go elsewhere on Terra for the truth.

  56. Larissa
    October 20, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    just went over to alter net and the homepage is horrific

    could not be more biased if they were directly funded by the Clinton Foundation

    No thank you!

    • Carole
      October 20, 2016 at 9:56 pm

      I totally agree

    • Tresha
      October 25, 2016 at 6:16 pm

      Same here. I checked it out, almost every headline was anti Trump. Not a single article on the crimes Hillary has committed and is committing. Very biased.

      • Lynn
        December 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

        What crimes has Hilary committed?
        Benghazi? Was found no fault SIX times. Emails? No fault twice.
        What else?
        Did she break the law when she researched socialist health care 20 years ago?
        How about when she helped get 6+ million children health insurance
        How about all she's done for women equality?
        Ohhhhh you must be speaking of the child sex scheme she had going on at the pizza place *rolls eyes*

        • Carver
          December 16, 2016 at 6:40 am

          I think you need to dig a little deeper and stop believing eveything you read in the msm.

        • John Smith
          February 6, 2017 at 9:19 am

          Once you stop sniffing the liberal glue, you'd see her crimes.
          In fact, just even questioning that she is a criminal despite the FBI director himself called her a liar and a criminal (yet refused to prosecute her because suddenly intent is a requirement to prosecute, for some reason) shows either you missed all that, or are a brainwashed person, or are a pathological liar, like Hillary.
          I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say you might have missed every news about her.
          But feel free to hang on straw argument, citing some conspiracy theory some idiots spreading on twitter as a proof of Hillary's hard to prove innocence.

        • Justme
          March 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

          How about rigging the DNC to win the primaries?

    • Pegnmil
      October 26, 2016 at 4:40 pm

      I totally agree! I was trying to find some real news and that site is as biased as all the main media. This site is stale as AlterNet has sold out.

      The Real News site is also pretty lame in real news.

      Independent seemed to be a pretty good site for world news. At least in the articles I was reading. I'm going to give it a week to see how it goes.

    • Lynn
      December 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

      But the thing is, the left reports things that are actually and factually true much more often than the right. Just because you personally don't want to believe them and are basing your stance on emotion and opinion, doesn't mean the the news you're reading is wrong.

      • Rann Xeroxx
        January 16, 2017 at 7:19 pm

        Ha, let me guess, you are a liberal or at least left of center. Your comment shows your bias.

        Most news outlets are left leaning if not extreme left. The reason is the same reason education tends to be left leaning in that liberals are attracted to these vocations. Conservatives tend to be attracted to other things like military careers, financial, etc. Go to any journalism school or college and it is almost entirely liberal.

      • John Smith
        February 6, 2017 at 9:26 am

        "But the thing is, the left reports things that are actually and factually true much more often than the right. "
        On what planet?
        Certainly not this one.
        Here is a sample of your " actually and factually true" left reporting.
        - Fast and furious was not obama's crime, it was Bush's.
        - Not one life lost in Benghazi.
        -Not one terrorist attack on US soil under obama.
        -The world is safer from what obama had to deal with when he got in the White House.
        - obamacare is popular, and saved lifes.
        -If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
        - "I did not have sexual relationships with that woman, Mis. Lewinsky"
        - Obama had a great economy. (first president since Hoover to never reach 3% GDP growth"
        - obama always supported LGBT rights. (flip-flopped until he needed their votes in 2012)
        -Republicans hate women.
        -Republicans hate children.
        -Republicans hate clean water and fresh air.
        I can go on, but a web site on its own is barely enough to list the lies and deception that came from the left.
        The left is morally bankrupt and their leaders are dishonest to say the least.

    • Lynn
      December 7, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      Which news sites do you all deem reliable?

  57. go
    October 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    No organization that claims "advocacy" for anything can be unbaised. My degree and work experience are in PR and media, and Alternet is not even close to "real" journalism. Remember, people under 50 equate journalism with advocacy. But they cannot exist in the same space. Advocacy is what the editors and columnists do on the opinion page. It does not belong in the "real" news, if we even have that anywhere anymore.

  58. Jess
    October 4, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Alternet is complete crap. It is a far left leaning, Clinton loving, war pushing; mindless site. Why the hell would this be added to this list?

    • AES
      October 10, 2016 at 1:45 am

      I agree. No sign of unbiased reporting at all.
      Nothing to say about Friday's Wikileaks Podesta email dump.
      Also, no ability to search the site.

  59. fyhhj
    October 3, 2016 at 9:14 am

    obviously google is ranking the "unbias news website" about a miles to the left and at the top. how about an "unbias search engine."

    • Larry Miller
      October 15, 2016 at 1:32 am

      Unbiased search engine that will NOT track you is DuckDuckGo

  60. Atjis
    September 28, 2016 at 4:52 am

    I was excited to try out your recommended sites. I'm sick of biased news "reporting." So I checked out Alternet first. Right now they have at least 10 front page stories bombasting Trump and praising Hillary. Every political story on their front page is pro-Hillary and anti-GOP. Where is the neutrality you were referring to? I feel like I'm browsing MSNBC.

  61. lloyd dettering
    September 28, 2016 at 2:03 am

    Here's something that ought to worry you more. It started long before during the Paul Martin government. Maybe even before :

    Sam Harris, in your book "Free Will", you quote Joshua Komisarjevsky, a career criminal, as claiming to have been stunned by his own behavior and that he had not consciously intended to kill anyone. As you've said 'such details might begin to give us pause'. In the Wikipedia biography of "Dr. Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, a Spanish professor of physiology at Yale University, famed for his research on mind control through electrical stimulation of the brain", in Reference #9, "Delgado later learned he could duplicate the results he got with the stimoceiver without any implants at all, using only specific types of electromagnetic radiation interacting with the brain. He lamented he didn't have access to the technology when (General) Franco (of Spain) was in power, as it would have allowed him to control the dictator at a distance". Do you realize that the one (or all) of the US government police agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, who knows) now has the ability to see and hear whatever anybody is doing or saying (alien technology? So are drones), and might have been responsible for the murders of the wife and dauhters of Dr. William Petit through Komisarjevsky (guns don't kill people as they say. People kill people with guns) as an experiment in mind control? The Reference #9 has now been removed, perhaps because I have suffered much at their hands and they don't want me to show this to anyone else. No one (especially the local police) will believe me. I now wear an all-steel helmet which blocks or absorbs the EMR, though they attack other parts of my body (not really effectively. It's my head they want). They have been trying to kill me for 6 years now. They killed my wife in 2008 and 2 healthy dogs in 2015 by induced heart attacks. The heart goes through a contract/relax cycle normally. They contract the heart for long periods until you're dead. This is how Andrew Brietbart was murdered (at first, a few minor attacks causing him to see his doctor about his heart, establishing a history, that established then the full force, and as a result he died). They do the same with the lower sphincture muscle of the intestine causing the feces to back up and you can't excrete, causing your health to deteriorate (meanwhile, your breath stinks of feces). If you're a diabetic on Insulin, regardless of how strict you follow the doctor's orders, you wake up to find your blood sugar reading sky-high. They attack the endocrine system, depleting your glands of their fluids. So, when you're really in a poor condition because your endocrine system no longer protects you, along comes the Trudeau Liberal government to offer you Doctor-Assisted Suicide and the doctors know nothing of what had been done to you. Canada's pensioners are living too long, costing, if they have long-term illnesses, too much. So, the government saves a bundle on pension and healthcare costs. Don't beleve me? Just Google, "Who are the members of Maple Group Acquisition Corp. (now TMX Group Ltd.)? The banks control governments at every level in Canada (Federal, Provincial and Municipal). Pehaps the Judiciary as well. The police? Certainly!(when anyone joins the Liberals or Conservatives they are vetted for how likely they are to 'play ball', if they want to run for office).The banks own or control stockbrokerages. The pension funds do NOT. The banks have insider information on how well or poorly a company is doing financially. The pension funds do NOT. Guess who is going to be told to buy or sell what the banks or their wealthy clients want to sell or buy? I'm sure the same thing is happening in the US. Maybe the other 3 eyes-inthe-sky countries (UK, Australia and New Zealand) as well. Israel's Mossud is also involved with the control of a genii that makes things appear and disappear (as in Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf), money, documents, etc. making you seem 'delusional' if you should complain to the police.

    • Paul Bigolin
      October 5, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      it's a difficult world and all should prepare for the end. But also prepare for the future in case were wrong

    • Anastasia Morris
      November 22, 2016 at 1:39 pm

      You need serious help by a medical professional. There's no shame getting the help, the shame is not getting it. Prayers and Blessings to you.

  62. Allan
    September 27, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    You are pulling the same stunt as Scientology. Selling the agenda in the form of railing against restricted freedoms. I came to your site with hope.

  63. David
    July 31, 2016 at 8:04 am

    I agree,

    I googled to try and find "unbiased news"

    I might as well be listing the the mainstream media

    Obviously the person who posted these news outlets as "unbiased" is profoundly stupid, for he doesn't seem to know what "unbiased" means;

    Let me help you; unbiased means

    Free from biase, free from prejudice and favouritism, to be neutral and fair,

    To have an "unbiased opinion"

    This means you give both sides a fair and impartial hearing;

    All these "unprofessional" news outlets clearly favour criminal Hillary and Democrats

  64. Mike mitchell
    July 31, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Every sight listed here smacks of prejudice. What a rotten bit of luck. Bugger off Mr Dube (who is likely smoking one..)

  65. Anna
    June 14, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    AlterNet has an obvious bias towards liberalism.

  66. Alex
    June 10, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    The poster Tim is right. Alternet bans people all the time. I got banned. Years ago they used to be ok, not so much anymore. They have a bias in support of main stream issues. bought and paid for, like a lot of news sites. Sorry, but your list is not correct.

  67. mike
    May 20, 2016 at 3:48 am

    restoretherepublicshow.com will never sensor. Though new, the republic news is a great source of info.

  68. Tim
    April 29, 2016 at 1:24 am

    I'm sorry to break it to you, but AlterNet censors all the time. If you post comments that disagree with the article being posted (especially when it comes to social justice topics), they will delete your posts and/or ban you.

    I've been frequenting AlterNet since 2004 roughly, and I've been a very active commentator on the site, but just this morning I woke up to find my 12 year old account banned, and why?

    Because I disagreed with an article having to do with girls giving blowjobs. The article claimed it was bad because the girls weren't reaching orgasm while giving the blowjob, but I'm of the opinion that one cannot be 'feminist' and stand there and tell a woman what she can/can't or should/shouldn't do. Nor can you tell a woman what pleasure her or not.

    Well, they didn't like that so they banned my account. No warning, nothing.

    Since you've gotten AlterNet so wrong, I can only assume the others are equally wrong.

    • Giovanni
      September 15, 2016 at 2:28 pm

      Keep in mind this article was posted in 2010.

      • Jess
        October 4, 2016 at 3:58 pm

        Then it should be updated, don't you think?

  69. yonder
    April 25, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Dude, when you out yourself as news-ignorant in the very beginning of the article and then confirm said ignorance with claims like how news used to be journalism as if journalism used to be the main goal of major news.

    That's NEVER been the case in regards to mainstream news. And if you're NOT talking about mainstream news, then quality journalism is easier to find than ever. You just have to put forth some effort.

    Which you have. Sadly, it's clear that you haven't put forth nearly enough to be qualified to have a respected opinion.

    There's nothing wrong with learning, which you're in the process of. And kudos for finally taking the first step. But when you pass yourself as knowledgeable, you just come across as a 20 year old who is living in their own for the very first time and is talking about how they're a "real adult" now.

    I don't mind you not including Young Turks. They're a quality outlet, tho with an obvious (but overt) bias. But you don't even MENTION them. It hurts the brain.

    Again, I'm glad you've taken your first step. Just don't fool yourself into thinking it's something more than the first step.

  70. rn
    April 20, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Seems that a lot of the commenters here have some serious issues. Nothing like insulting half of America just to make yourself feel better.

    I would have thought that comments here to be more about vetting these suggested news sites for their non-biased and independent nature, not demonstrating your own bias. Let's stick to the subject matter here people and use facts and examples not vitriol.

    • Ken
      December 3, 2016 at 10:01 pm

      @Rn,
      Welcome to the new normal. I won't burn calories or brain cells responding to the negative comments. So I send you positive energy as you continue to feed your hunger for knowledge. I love you for your humanity.

  71. Phil
    April 2, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    Rubbish article.
    These sources are as bad as MSM, the spin is just hidden better.

  72. Nadia
    March 24, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Check out The Young Turks, they're very liberal so maybe not quite un-biased but they report the news as they are wether it favors their points of view or not and I must say they're refreshingly real and honest.

  73. John
    March 20, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Was hoping to get an honest assessment here so I could change my homepage on my browser. So I checked out your favorite: The Real News. One look at the page makes it obvious that it is not unbiased. Top 2 stories were about Bernie Sanders. Love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders does not warrant the top two positions on the page. Bottom position was Donald Trump with a headline asking if Donald Trump was inciting violence. Seems very clear which way this site leans. I just want a site that reports facts, no opinions. Very disappointed that you likely have people believing this site in non-patial

  74. Nick Signorelli
    February 11, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    hi

  75. Barb
    January 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    I'm sick of thes "supposed" unbiased news outlets claiming independence from left or right leaning, especially if it's liberal progressive socialist psychos!
    Why, cause I'm a republican? You'd be wrong asshole to assume such a thing. Im a freakin' AMERICAN & we are sick of the wealthy LIBTARDS OF HOLLYWOOD/MEDIA COMPLEX & WASHINGTON feeding us trash in the tv shows, garbage in the movies,toxicity in the music and absolute putrid vile waste in the News! We are sick of watching a great nation plummet to underneath the Waste Management trash heap, with their sick sexual perversion agendas, twisted envy,class warfare,race warfare,gender warfare & any other evil ways that they thrust down societies throat like a bunch of scumbag pedophiles!

    • Nick Signorelli
      February 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm

      Hey barb just wanted to let u know ur not alone. U seem like a great gal who deserves to know whats up.

      • Barb
        February 9, 2016 at 7:14 pm

        Much appreciated seriously. Check out Billy Cortez's comment below, & you'll see the evidence of "lower brain" being the new norm.

    • Nick Signorelli
      February 9, 2016 at 1:02 pm

      Im living like larry

    • Oliver Slayne
      February 9, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      You are preaching to the chair Barbara!

    • Billy Cortes
      February 9, 2016 at 3:32 pm

      Being Hispanic I can really appreciate freedom of speech, because Mexico we can't say jack. But America is a place where you can speak what want. You wouldn't be able to say what you said in Mexico. Come on Barbara. Don't act like a baboon, and criticize the country. #weed #coke #murica

      • Barb
        February 9, 2016 at 7:10 pm

        @Billy Cortez
        Obviously by the hash tags at the bottom of your post (#weed coke murica) you've utterly wasted what little brain lower you had. Advice, there's a good reason they call them mind altering drugs.
        You state you appreciate coming to a country that allows speech freedom THEN ( HERES THE IRONY OF IRONIES) you Tell ME to NOT criticize my country. YOU FOOL ,you can't say you appreciate something with ANY validity & chastise that in which YOU claim to respect.

    • Billy Cortes
      February 11, 2016 at 12:53 am

      Hey barb. Mark Zuchwnburg smokes hot tomalley. However I would presume that you believe that he is an idiot. I suppose only idiots socialize with you. In addition you are probably a bored housewife, who thinks that they know what is going on. In reality you haven't done anything meaningful in the real work to make any judgements that should be taken seriously. I just smoked you harder than Willie Nelson smokes weed.

    • R.A.Stoneking
      February 29, 2016 at 12:28 am

      WHy don't you just say what you mean Barb. LOL

      I am in full agreement with you. Nothing good comes from Hollywood, the MSM, most video games, and just about anything else media related in this country (USA) or the UK for that matter. Almost everything is agenda driven, and that agenda is always the left wing socialist, anti-American, Anti-God agenda.

      Homo-terrorists early on took control of the advertising and marketing industry, and nowadays, you cannot advertise without including someone who is stereotypically gay, nor can you get "A" movies released without including the same. They were smart, in spite of the fact percentage wise they are a tiny percent of the US population, they have successfully given the appearance that they are a major part of our society. It is all smoke and mirrors.

      MSM, and even so-called independent media outlets all support them whether it is because they want to or are forced to by the homo-terrorist machine.

      Speaking of gener warfare, feminists have been the driving force behind all the moral evils of our society. Homosexuality would still be illegal if it had not been for the feminist alliance.

      Scumbags indeed!

      R.A. Stoneking

    • Luther Manhole
      March 30, 2016 at 8:23 am

      @Barb
      Take a deep breath. Everything's gonna be fine. Just plop yourself on that couch and take in a few more hours of Fox News.

    • eden
      January 9, 2017 at 2:58 am

      Barb, wow, the best summary of our society and current times ever...right spot on...thanks

  76. B Coffman
    January 4, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The mission statements proclaim the "agenda" of these sites. Unbiased news does not have an agenda.

  77. Just
    December 28, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    These are really left-wing biased news sites as specially Alter-Net and The Independent. there are no good non biased news sites it really sad but i guess you have stick with mainstreet media.

  78. M. Craig
    December 7, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    Alternet is so far left it's nauseating. Totally out of touch with reality. I read a couple of articles and read all the headlines. Every headline was a slam against the right and conservatives. One article I read was so shrill and anti conservative it was almost like satire but the writer was serious. This site can only appeal to the most radical of the left. And then the comments below the article were laughable. So much anger and hate. I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant.

    • Barb
      February 9, 2016 at 7:21 pm

      Liberals, tolerant? Its truly laughable indeed if it weren't so despicable, right? On the news one night ,they made it a point to make reference of someone who said " if you repeat lies enough, people will believe them as truth"- I paraphrased lol
      So, NOT ONLY do they with great intent destroy anything good & right but tell you HOW THEY will do it,giving added tools to the lower brained followers I'm sure.

    • KC33
      March 14, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      News is not meant to codify your personal beliefs on social or moral issues.....if news is doing that for you, or that is what you want and/or expect from a news source....then you should stick with Fox News, CNN.....and could we please stop calling Media Left and Liberal.....that is another thing that main stream news outlets have done...continually telling people that media is liberal!! And so they believe it when they see a story, a headline about someone or something that politically or religiously disagree with! It is ridiculous and those arguments are beyond idiotic! If you find a news story on alternet or one of the others, that is factually wrong, and is a news story....not an entertainment or opinion piece....that is one thing, but to say liberal media, because you do not like something or do not agree with it....well that is ridiculous! If you can only handle news that fits into your small, limited, narrow viewpoint....then real news, honest news, factual news.....is just not for you!

  79. Anony Mity
    December 2, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    The "cbc"(canada) said nor more critical aboriginal comments,The georgia straight.com in vancouver b.c. also stopped or made it harder.I also noticed going to a public computer to post with privacy and then same machine would be gone next time or conveniently broken...

    • Barb
      February 9, 2016 at 7:24 pm

      @Anony Mity
      I'm so sad for y'all. You had a great singer Cory Heart I believe, many of his powerful songs spoke the present at that time & coming in like a lion today.

  80. Michael
    November 16, 2015 at 9:35 am

    Several of these sites, e.g. The Independent and TheRealNews, can only seem neutral to someone who is left leaning.

    • Donna Gregory
      December 4, 2015 at 7:23 am

      Absolutely. If you are looking for media sources that support an agenda, be it pro-indigenous people or pro-environment, or pro-capitalism, then you are not looking for unbiased news. You are looking for news which agrees with your world view. I want a news source that, for example, is not afraid to publish the names of the shooters in the San Bernadino attack on the social services agency. It can report about the cache of guns the shooters had, but it will not try to turn it into a pro-gun control story. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions. The new source I am looking for will report what Obama or Trump said or did, but it will not lampoon them or glamorize them.

  81. K h
    November 15, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    I am truly looking for UNbiased news. This list is not that... I checked them out, and they're quite liberal-leaning. My test: search for terms "right-wing" vs "left" and "conservative" and "liberals" ... if they use one term and not the other, then they're not an unbiased site.
    Example: alternet calls them right wing and liberals. I think I even saw the terms crackpot and wingnut....
    Not what I'm looking for. Fail.

  82. WildeNabokov
    November 14, 2015 at 12:56 am

    Thank you for the listings :)

  83. Stephen E Ashton
    September 2, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    I have to agree about Alternet, it is so virulently far left that it is comical, and I'm a liberal Democrat. Nothing but slanted bias pieces that usually start with a question like, "Are all GOP candidates secretly trying to destroy America?" Too funny.

  84. Anonymous
    August 18, 2015 at 5:16 am

    Commondreams.org is a great progressive media source that has been around since 1997. It is independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

  85. Gerty Medret
    August 4, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    I'm giving up on media "news" outlets. Issues I care about or support I will go right to the source or advocates.

  86. Gerty Medret
    August 4, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    I just browsed AlterNet, it isn't independent, its completely one-sided left-wing biased as can be. It promoted the mass genocide of unborn children via Planned parenthood, and it calls itself "human rights advocates". Give me a break.

  87. Daniel C
    May 28, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Alternet is so left wing it's not even funny... and I am left wing. The front page is almost identical to Rawstory.

  88. Ali
    April 16, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    A new Independent Free Media Worldwide or the IFMW is now seen daily on the internet. However, it was on and off media scene since many years past. It's relatively without censorship thus far but gives a truer picture of Muslim world.

  89. Ali
    April 16, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    A new website on the runway is Independent Free Media World or the IFMW. It's worth a visit.

  90. Maria
    April 4, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Very useful! Thanks!

  91. Ratman Boy
    March 24, 2015 at 10:49 am

    Why didn't you include BBC? Allow me to share another news on 2016 Chevy Cruze Reviews thanks you please dont remove I just wanna share!

  92. human
    March 20, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    In order to have a complete perspective one must at least view the situation from multiply sides. More is better. But most of all use logic. And while you are at it consider this "anything that divides one human from another is an enemy of all humans.

  93. Bryan
    April 2, 2010 at 7:41 am

    I think calling these sites uncensored, is REALLY stretching it, after all, in my years of viewing so called news, the reporter has increasingly, injected an opinion of their own into the mix, so to me, it should be re-named the best 5 left winged sites. How about some right winged ones, thanks.

  94. David Rogers
    March 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Ryan, I appreciate your attempt to provide alternate news feeds. Right and left are relative terms, very spicy. I think what you are after is better termed balanced news, and the only way to get that with the news sources we have today is to read both conventional and alternative sources. I also appreciate your giving us examples of news sites that put less emphasis on north American pop culture. I have added your suggestions to my Google Reader feeds, knowing that now as I scan the headlines I will get a more rounded picture. Both the left and the right think they´re right: that´s cool: me, I will read as objectively as I can about each event, and then make up my own mind what´s going on out there and what we should do about it. Thank you for your help.

  95. Luis Colorado
    February 23, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Several points to clarify:

    1. I don't think that there is a news media that is not censored, either internally or externally. The sources of censorship may be ideology, sponsorship, government, and so on. I have seen that on left and right news.
    2. Objectivity, or lack of bias. Again, I don't think that any human being can be totally objective. The place where we grew up, our school, our nation, our parents, our genes, and so many things shape our minds, that full objectivity can be attempted, but not always achieved.
    3. Agenda: I would prefer that media outlets came out and state their ideology, vision, philosophy, and self perceived mission in this word. But, alas, I don't think that any media outlet would like to say "we are here to satisfy our sponsors, Exxon Mobil and the oil industry, and show entertaining news." Sadly, honesty is also out of the picture.

    Personally speaking, I am a centrist-leftist, but I am happy to read the right wing news media. Sometimes they make points that I would have never considered.

    The only way to get barely objective, unbiased, uncensored news is to go to national and international outlets from every either side. That's the only way to understand what's really going on.

  96. Dave
    February 11, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Not one mention of the BBC !?

    • martin mcqueen
      March 3, 2015 at 1:04 am

      Reuters is owned by the Rothschids I believe...

      • M J Bailey
        February 13, 2017 at 10:08 pm

        Spot on!!

      • I just want news
        February 24, 2017 at 6:03 pm

        Is there ANY news source that ISN'T owned by rich bastards and is unbiased as well? Im getting fed up with this so-called news and need reliable information.

    • Dave
      January 2, 2017 at 7:27 pm

      Sorry to tell you dave, the BBC hasn't been unbiased for the past 20+yrs

      • M J Bailey
        February 13, 2017 at 10:09 pm

        You mean the British Bullshit Corporation!

  97. David
    February 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Actually, the Independent in the UK is a complete anachronism. When it was set up, it was independent from the media corporations and proprietors who owned the rest of the British national newspapers- mainly Robert Maxwell, Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black.

    Well, one out of three's still in business.

    However, there are rumours that the paper will soon be taken over by Alexander Lebedev, who owns the London evening standard and was a KGB agent.

    Of course, that does not mean it won't be objective. However, their current editor was the mouthpiece for the UK government during his time at the Observer during the buildup to the Iraq war. Technically it wasn't biased, it simply presented the government stance uncritically, mostly because their political editor's only inside source was, errm, the government spin doctor.

    Why not just get all your news from Reuters, AP and AFP? That's where all the news sites get theirs.

  98. d bene tleilax
    February 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    I am glad to see a post like this, because I have been frustrated with the terrible mainstream media for ages. I always get my news from multiple alternative outlets, and it's good to present more options to anyone who might be interested in learning what's outside of our little American media box.

    I definitely agree that for anyone who cares to know the real story behind anything, receiving reports from a variety of sources on all sides of the political spectrum is absolutely critical. So if these are indeed left-leaning and one has a right-leaning inclination, these should still be valuable for getting another perspective on whatever issues it is that one cares about.

    If people are truly interested in the reality of something, then I am sure they would welcome all information they could get about that issue, in order to increase knowledge about it. That is what taking an objective approach is really about. I am highly skeptical of people who are consistently fed by only one avenue of information, because it greatly increases the likelihood that they are missing out on important data that could be quite relevant.

    But then again people often purposefully avoid that very same data because they are reluctant to change their opinions or can't handle the social consequences of such changes (i.e. having to admit you no longer like Obama when surrounded by Obama-loving friends).

  99. Mike
    February 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Thank you for the compilation. Ignoring left/right argumentatives, I guess I need to know how the judgment of "independent" came about. Have you researched either their funding sources, or their editorial board makeup and bonafides, or should I attempt that myself. I heartily agree with you on the need for journalistic independence, but I am unfortunately old enough to be cynical about the titles of organizations and/or their mission statements. Up to now, I have just been reconciled to combing the various outlets in the sometimes justified hope of at least getting competing points of view.

  100. Unbaised...Right!
    February 4, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    "The Real News Network" is defiantly not biased no matter what their mission statement says, If you check their middle east page all they have is the arab's side of the story. No where do they have Israel's side.

    • Steve
      February 14, 2010 at 4:28 am

      Hello "Unbaised Right"! You might be right....But Israel enjoys complete
      coverage in almost all North-American, European newspapers and/or magazines! That cannot be said about "Middle Eastern'' papers ! In regard to the "Real News Network", it tries to report and investigate news about the Middle-East and the Palestinians which are often reported inaccurately if reported at all by the overwhelming majority of media outlets here in North
      America to say the least ! Bye

  101. crljones
    February 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    I agree with iBastard. It seems that the ONLY serious connection between these "news" sites it the common moniker "Independent" - they seem to have more in common with left-wing advocacy organizations. If merely having the word "independent" in your title was enough to truly guarantee it - the world would be a better place - but it doesn't and its not. So lets stop facile post topics like this in the future eh Ryan?

    • Ryan Dube
      February 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm

      crljones - you're confusing the term "independent" with "biased." Independent means that no corporate entity or private funding will direct which stories are covered or how they are covered - only the editorial staff will based on their own principles.

      The fact that you dislike their left-leaning advocacy doesn't make the post topic "facile."

  102. iBastard
    February 4, 2010 at 11:03 am

    If there's one thing I can't stand related to news sources, it's when they lean too far to the left or right. This insults my intelligence as I would prefer to make my own decisions and not be force fed their opinions (unless it's an opinion piece, or course). Most of the sources above are garbage.

    • Ryan Dube
      February 4, 2010 at 10:48 pm

      Please see my post above - again, I don't think there's a single news source in the world that can be perfect for everyone. But they should all be uncensored.

  103. bert
    February 4, 2010 at 9:52 am

    unbiased? you're kidding, right? Maybe these news sites aren't censored, but they are very far left...

    • Ryan Dube
      February 4, 2010 at 10:47 pm

      I suppose considering the wide range of social/political beliefs of MUO readers, calling anything unbiased is a bit of a stretch. Someone will always find bias. On the other hand, the title calls them free of censorship, which was the core point of the article.

      • bert
        February 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm

        So, I guess you are defining censorship as an entity deciding, based on their own beliefs, what should/should not be published. But it seems you go further and have decided that it is censorship if a company decides what should be published but if an individual or a group of individuals makes that decision, it's not censorship? At what point does the group become an "entity" that, if it decides what to publish, it is censoring? I think you need to stick with the common concern of censorship by a government. If a private entity, be it a company or an individual, makes publication decisions, anyone can choose whether or not to read the publication. I really don't understand your reasoning.

    • Kirk R
      January 17, 2017 at 7:29 am

      The Wall Street Journal can hardly be called a leftist news organization. It is owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) who is well known for his far right wing views. This author is way off-base to call the WSJ "unbiased."

      So calling the author's suggestions, "very far left" is completely wrong.

  104. jayton420
    February 4, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Amy Goodman (one of the most boring hosts on television) and Noam Chomsky can hardly be considered without censorship. There is a ton of news out there they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

  105. Roansal
    February 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

    The words censorship and objective don't fit the news media anymore. The media just tell us what we want to hear. On TV it's about ratings, the Print media it's about sales, and the Internet media outlets it's about "hits". People seem to be "self censoring" by seeking out media outlets that reinforce their viewpoints. There is less tolerance for listening to opposing viewpoints. Without listening to more than one source (side) of an issue, how could one ever discern the "truth".

  106. Matthew
    February 4, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Some of these sites are just too far left (Alternet) and basically scraps of news blanketed with lefty opinions. Think I'll stick to the Drudge Report.

    • lindsncal
      February 27, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      B S. What you call 'lefty opinions' are actually facts and indisputable evidence pointing out the lies from the right. If you actually read them, you'd know that.
      Facts...those pesky things trump supporters refuse to look at.

  107. Bob
    February 3, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    I would also recommend http://democracynow.org, Noam Chomsky (a leading political dissenter) has only positive things to say about Amy Goodman.

  108. Marcelle
    February 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I hope these sites have apps! I try to seek out other media outlets and these look good. Thanks!