Top 4 Unbiased World News Sources Free From Censorship

Gavin Phillips Updated 12-03-2020

This is a world where money seems to have such control over journalistic integrity. Are there no unbiased news sources you can turn to anymore? The short answer is an emphatic yes.


There’s still hope.

When it comes to “censorship,” news is censored either by the overreach of government entities or by a corporate stranglehold on the editorial processes of news organizations.

What Is Unbiased News?

Unbiased news is a news story presented factually, without any spin toward a political stance or to benefit the owners of the news outlet. In that, news carrying a bias usually comes with the opposite; constantly positive news from a state news organization or policies financed through the state leadership themselves.

There is no better example of this than the Xinhua News Agency, the mouthpiece of the Peoples Republic of China. Or, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS), the news agency owned by the Russian government. However, the US and other Western countries are not innocent. In the US and the UK, those controlling the journalists’ pens are corporate leaders rather than government leaders.

In the US, five corporate media giants control most of the US media market: Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T, Viacom, and Fox Corporation. The merging of media companies in multi-billion-dollar deals has concentrated ownership of media outlets into an ever-decreasing number of conglomerates.


As a prime example, in 1983, 50 companies controlled 90% of US media. In 2011, just six companies controlled 90%. In 2020, that number is down to five, and it could become even less in the future.

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.

You can see the effect of media concentration during the run-up to every US Presidential election. Media corporate owners contribute significant campaign contributions to their favored candidates.

On the other hand, they publish 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. Not only that, but we live in a time where media and tech conglomerate owners are running for office, blurring the lines between politics, media, and news.


So, are there are any unbiased news sources?

1. The Associated Press

Associated Press unbiased news sources

The Associated Press was founded in 1846. The renowned global news organization has 53 Pulitzer Prizes under its belt. It is and has always been the epitome of clear and unbiased news 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 news.

The AP doesn’t paint rainbows for one side on any story while drawing storm clouds for the other. The language used in each report is neutral, and the focus is only on reporting the news.

Independent media bias checkers consistently place The Associated Press firmly in the center of the news, with some extremely borderline leanings toward the left-center. Check out the AllSides report for more information, or the Media Bias Fact Check for an alternative.

The AP also made it onto our list of most trusted news websites 12 Best News Sites You Can Trust Want the best news sites around? This list of top-ranked news sites kill fake news stories and publish credible content. Read More .


2. Wall Street Journal

the wall street journal media bias

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 the President in the Press Room. 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 writing.

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.

AllSides confirms that the Wall Street Journal presents unbiased news coverage, with a slight lean to the right-center at times. Furthermore, the 2014 Pew Research Center Study on Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum found that the WSJ has almost equal coverage across the political spectrum.

Contrast with Fox News and CNN

You can contrast the WSJ with Fox News, a site with a strong bias toward the right, and CNN, a site with a strong bias toward the left.

Top 4 Unbiased World News Sources Free From Censorship fox news media bias

The political bias extends from the media, too. Other sites that lack journalistic integrity are usually overtly nationalistic (overly pro-American—posting negative news headlines specifically attacking other countries, glossing over or glorifying negative national issues), or blatantly anti-American (attacking American foreign policy without contrasting with positives, deriding US healthcare with little nuance, gun policies, and so on).

cnn media bias

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.

3. Reuters

reuiters media bias

Reuters is a well-respected unbiased news outlet with a strong focus on clean, accurate reporting. News events on this site are written with some of the most straightforward reporting seen anywhere.

World stories on controversial hot-topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Brexit, or various government elections, 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, unbiased news reporting is so rare.

If you want to bookmark only one news website, you should bookmark this one. You will get a fair and balanced perspective on all important matters in the world today.

Both AllSides and Media Bias Fact Check report Reuters as one of the least biased news sources currently available. It also features as one of the most unbiased news sources in The Economist’s report on ideological bias in news reporting.

4. BBC

bbc news media bias

The BBC is the world’s oldest national broadcasting service and one of the largest news services in the world. If you want to know what’s going on in the world, the BBC is the place to go. There is a good chance you will find better information than the same stories at a US news site.

It may seem ironic that US news organizations appear far more censored and filled with pro-government propaganda than British news organizations. These days, US foreign policy includes so much government cooperation with corporate US 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, the BBC is an excellent source of unbiased news.

In recent years, the BBC has been accused of taking a left-leaning stance on news reporting. While AllSides reports that the BBC is unbiased, the Media Bias Fact Check site agrees that the BBC has a story selection that “slightly favors the left.”

The BBC is undoubtedly far from perfect—name me a news outlet that is—and there is a lot of very valid criticism of the BBC. But if both the right and left bemoan its reporting in equal parts, surely that means it is somewhere toward the middle.

Other Unbiased News Sources Worth Mentioning

There are a few additional news organizations in the world that deserve mention. They didn’t make the first list because, at times, bias might appear in their reporting. C-Span and Pew Research aren’t specifically news organizations. However, both deserve mention as fantastic factual resources you can use to delve further into and learn the truth behind many of today’s news stories.

  1. C-Span. C-Span lets you watch government hearings and other events direct, allowing you to hear what your politicians are saying without the interference of a journalist’s pen. You’ll find it surprising how much certain journalists twist what is said during an important hearing, all to fit in with the bias of their news outlet or personal political outlook.
  2. The Financial Times. As one of the oldest broadsheets in the world, the Financial Times maintains an excellent reputation for delivering impartial news relating to economics, politics, business, and more.
  3. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. With a strong focus on investigative journalism and long-form news articles, you can count on the Bureau to deliver fact-based reporting.
  4. 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 a refreshingly honest and impartial news source. You’ll find stories here that attack or support government policies from both sides of the aisle.
  5. Pew Research. If you want the pure facts and figures behind the articles, you need to head to Pew Research, the “nonpartisan think tank.” Pew Research consistently publishes unbiased research into news, politics, technology, media, and much more. If you start reading their reports rather than the news, you’ll understand more about the bias found throughout the media, allowing you to make informed decisions about where you read your news.
  6. The Economist. The Economist covers an array of political, economics, tech, and media commentary both online and in print. According to their About page, The Economist attempts to blend right and left, “drawing on the classic liberalism of the 19th” The combination certainly works, as The Economist frequently features as one of the least biased news sources around.

Is Google News Unbiased?

Google News is sometimes pointed at as a source of unbiased news because it presents users with a list of articles from both sides of the political spectrum. However, multiple studies have shown that the curated articles found on Google News have a bias towards sites from the left of the spectrum.

Take this chart, for example. The AllSides media bias check site analyzed the media bias rating of Google News sites following the August 2019 mass-shootings in the US:

allsides media bias google news outlets

The distinct lack of right-leaning sites found in those search terms perfectly illustrates the issue with Google News.

Despite what some readers think, the bias isn’t as bad you would expect. The Economist’s report on Google News bias found that the figures for left and right-leaning articles were closer than previously thought.

As the article states, “If Google favored liberals, left-wing sites would appear more often than our model predicted, and right-wing ones less.” The article concludes that Google News punishes right-leaning sites because of the trust issues surrounding content on those sites and that ultimately, Google News pushes viral articles that could make it more income through extra clicks.

Which, in turn, makes it a questionable source for your daily news.

What Is the Most Unbiased News Source?

That is a difficult question. Is there a “most” unbiased news source? US media polarization is at one of its most extreme points ever, with the right and left consuming news from essentially different spheres of information. A Pew Research report indicates that partisan media polarization has grown considerably throughout the past five years, with Republican trust in mainstream news sources heading in one negative direction.

pew research media bias dems repub

One issue is that anyone who disagrees with a news story believes it carries a bias. Readers on the right hate CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, and so on. Those on the left hate Fox News, The Blaze, The Daily Mail, and so on. Everyone in the middle hates them all. Is there a way to call any news organization unbiased, when bias itself is subjective to the reader?

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 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 left that uphold these principles.

Of course, it isn’t just the traditional media that carry bias. Social media sites present another issue. For instance, check out how Facebook uses your date during the election period, and how that data feeds into the beast of election hacking How Does Election Hacking Work? Everything Explained in Simple Terms Wondering what election hacking actually means and involves? We'll explain it in a straightforward way. Read More .

Related topics: Fake News, Google News, Internet Censorship, News, Reading.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

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

  1. steven dufrane
    July 12, 2020 at 12:25 am

    Very well thought out article. The comments of these others are laughable. The article is about the most unbiased sites, not that all they print is unbiased. So tired of the over-reactors in society. We ALL know who is biased left and right..they are proud of it. For my money it is the Wall St Journal. Those who say know are definitely liberal and anything (facts) offend you. If that is the case just stick with MSNBC. 90% of people look for affirmation in the news not information anyway. Wake up.

  2. Sam Price
    June 27, 2020 at 11:02 am

    Sorry but the Wall Street Journal is most definitely biased. Have you seen the hit pieces they've published and defended on PewDiePie? And that's just one of the most notable and transparent examples. They've released countless articles attacking and harassing YouTube and Youtubers with baseless claims and clearly bad faith arguments.

    Also, I live in the UK and the BBC are most definitely biased. They report foreign news with much less biased than they report local news that effects them. The UK news media is definitely better than the US one but it's definitely not unbiased and its getting worse every day.

  3. The Steel General
    June 10, 2020 at 1:27 pm

    Odd article. Heavily biased though, in favor of Angry White Males. We all get that the present bunch of Brits and Americans are too ignorant to even read other languages, like Arab, Chinese, Hindi or even Spanish, German and god forbid... FRENCH. So it's not surprising mister Philips shoves four WHITE MALE dominated news outlets down our throats and calls them "unbiased" or very little biased. Biggest no-no is the WSJ which, sometimes with outright lying in their "opinion" pieces, pushes a white male perspective. There's zero to few articles to serve from a liberal pov, let alone a female PoV, of color, muslim, hindi nor buddhist.
    Calling that unbiased is ... brain damaged.
    Categorize under "Us here at McDonalds recommend ... McDonalds. For health food"

    Large number of comments attacking the BBC as leftwing, does NOT make your article unbiased. This simply shows that 90% of Brit newspapers are Reichwing extremist.

  4. The Steel General
    June 10, 2020 at 11:35 am

    The WSJ is a distinctly rightwing news outlet. And to not mention the NYtimes is very odd.
    I don't what's the oddest thing about this article:
    A- that writer Gavin imagines HISSELF to be unbiased, or
    B- that all the news outlets he thinks are unbiased are white male dominated and anglo-saKKKson to boot. Lest we forget: White males are not even 5% of world population, but control >90% of the money, top managerial positions, in church, army and business, as well as 99% of all the guns and 100% of the nukes

    And this is not to say that his top four overtly lie, although in the case of the WSJ, they do do that sometimes.
    But they all report on what interests white males, they all give white male criminals, like trump and the cops who butcher blacks on the streets, the benefit of the doubt, while they are quick to question everyone else, from Hillary Clinton, to George Floyd and .....(insert random Muslim)
    And that 90% of the last batch of comments here is viciously and mendaciously attacking the BBC, is because in the UK, three quarters of newspapers are rightwing extremist and racist. Because Murdoch, one, and because Thatcher let Murdoch roam and poison the UK with his Fake Victimhood Capitalism: AKA capitalism for the poor, communist government protection for billionaires.

    We realize that the average white male anglo speaking college graduate is STILL too stupid to speak and read any other language, like Swahili, German, Chinese, Arab or .... say .. FRENCH. But we have translation robots for that now.
    You at least, could have mentioned the French AFP, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera. Since .... you know ... THEY HAVE LIKE .... ENGLISH WEBSITES!!

  5. Dick langton
    June 8, 2020 at 9:48 pm

    Can’t believe I wasted my energy and time reading this article. It should be removed. Fortunately I only got to the BBC then realised immediately that the writer had done little - if any - research. A simple lazy Wikipedia search will show a brief history about the political leadership, class and racism rife at the BBC! It’s a propaganda machine!

  6. Larry
    June 5, 2020 at 7:04 pm

    The AP and Reuters are not unbiased. They both are very liberal organizations. Look at what they print and the manner that they print it and it is obvious.

  7. James
    June 5, 2020 at 6:34 pm

    Your list is bogus. AP & Reuters are left-wing biased. So is the BBC.

  8. Robin
    June 5, 2020 at 4:32 pm

    I don't think that the author of this article understands the meaning of the word "unbiased." The AP and the BBC are both fairly loose with facts and tend to skew their stories in one direction. At this point in time I can't think of a truly unbiased news source.

  9. dragonmouth
    June 5, 2020 at 1:47 pm

    I guess BBC IS NOT biased since both the Left wingers and Right wingers are complaining about its bias in favor of the other side.

    There may be no institutional bias by BBC. However, the bias is introduced by individual reporters/authors.

  10. Skip Hayden
    June 5, 2020 at 12:20 pm

    Very good, yet also very disturbing article, especially the very high support for FOX news cited for Republicans.
    Also, I believe you have seriously missed another excellent news source - The Guardian.

    • Bob
      June 6, 2020 at 10:06 am

      Why did they single out Fox? MUO is also biased apparently. You could have just flipped everything around and said the same thing about Democrats, which MUO should have done - shown how Democrats view too - not just Republicans. I've noticed the definite "Left" slant in all the MUO articles dealing with politics. A precious one of "fact-checkers" was a total biased article as almost everyone was run by Democrat-favoring newspapers. Glenn Kessler, Fact-checker for WaPo was aon PBS a few years ago discussing this. He stated over 90% of the fact-checkers are Democrats as well as the organization they work for. All-sides rates the bias of the various sources. Just the Facts Daily rates the fact-checkers and has had issues with Media Bias/Fact Check as also being biased and called them out.

      • Bob
        June 6, 2020 at 10:21 am

        No edit ability when posting. That "precious" should have been "previous", something spell-check doesn't catch. I was referring to a previous article on Fact-checkers by MUO. All those Fact-checkers were biased, with MUO claiming they weren't. Not much on doing "homework" and digging.

  11. Mike Paterson
    June 5, 2020 at 7:12 am

    The BBC is completely untrustworthy.massive left-wing bias, hundreds of thousands of complaints in progress .Nearly £1 million spent annually on left-wing paper The Guardian. they should have their remit to deliver political programming removed IMO.

  12. Derek Kelsey
    June 4, 2020 at 9:16 pm

    The BBC is now nothing more than a right wing PROPAGANDA outlet and probably worse than FOX

  13. Elizabeth Wilcox
    June 2, 2020 at 1:49 pm

    This is a hilarious 'informative' article. Obviously, the writer needs to understand that bias originates in opinion. AP is THE WORST at publishing pieces without factual information. They use partial fact based information and twist it with opinion, poisoning the well. I'm sorry, but y'all journalist's just are not up to snuff.

  14. xectis
    May 24, 2020 at 3:25 pm

    The BBC is on this list??? Hahahaha how laughable.

  15. Robert Wetmore
    May 20, 2020 at 1:59 am

    I entirely disagree that Reuters is unbiased. Their anti-Trump bias comes up in every story. They cannot print a story that says something positive about Trump without mixing some negative editorial opinion, masked as fact. I voted for Hillary in the last election, but the past 4 years have convinced me that the news media are so biased that we are living in a world where all news is really opinion. I have also, much to my disappointment, found AP to be biased, constantly coloring their articles with anti-Trump opinion. I guess I am going to have to spend the cash to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and hope that they are not as biased as everyone else.

    • Paul
      May 30, 2020 at 10:41 pm

      Maybe the reason that Reuters appears biased is because in fact there is so little that is positive about Trump. As a non US citizen of the world, all I see is a narcissistic egomaniac who is totally out of control. The rest of the world thinks, nay knows, he's a complete and utter moron with no morals or compassion about anything. Except maybe the balance of his bank account. Somebody oughta tell him, you can't take it with you when you die.

      • Mike Paterson
        June 5, 2020 at 7:14 am

        Your bias stops you seeing their bias.

  16. Chip L Powell
    May 4, 2020 at 5:09 pm

    The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp, the same group that owns Fox.

  17. Theresa
    May 1, 2020 at 7:55 pm

    I am so tired of the news stations bashing the right or the left. I want to read NEWS, not hear opinions. It seems there is no more unbiased news reporting. I am a registered Republican, but don’t like the negativity coming from the Republican side as mush as I dislike it coming from the Democrats. I want to hear the news and formulate my own opinion without influence.

  18. RICK
    April 26, 2020 at 1:31 am

    this humor right? the ap, you've got be kidding the dem drudge report

  19. F
    April 18, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    This is a good article

  20. Jason
    March 24, 2020 at 5:21 pm

    I think all you have mentioned are biased.
    I thought the Joe Rogan Experience was refreshing. Interesting ideas expressed without financial backing choosing which one and the parameters looked at. Biased, humanly sure, but not by business interest.

  21. Friar Tux
    March 23, 2020 at 9:44 pm

    Mr. Philips, I have been on this ball of dirt for 68 years, and I can tell you, quite honestly, that NO news agency, be it paper, television, Internet, or what ever, NO news agency is unbiased. NONE. That died out in the sixties or seventies. Maybe earlier.

    • Ryan Dube
      March 30, 2020 at 3:04 am

      Don't blame Mr. Philips. He didn't actually write 90% of this article, they just changed the author's name so they could make it appear to Google as though the article was just published.

    • John Long
      June 5, 2020 at 1:32 pm

      It is not just reported that is often biased but what is NOT reported that is biased.

      • Bob
        June 6, 2020 at 10:40 am

        Absolutely true! The biggest lie the MSM and Cable channels and so-called news organizations (and blogs), is the "Untold truth". The media talks about Trump dividing the country, its not Trump, its the media. Obama was divisive too, but the media blamed it on the Republicans. If Trump had been elected as a Democrat and did the same things he has done, the media would have been ecstatic and claimed he walks on water. Joe Biden says stupid, moronic things and even outright lies, extorted the Ukrainian president (so his son wouldn't get prosecuted) and this is OK with the media (you can find Biden bragging about it on a Youtube video). The media has been outwardly biased for the past 30-40 years, even moreso, this past 20 years. You go back 40-50 years ago, most cities in the US of any size had 2 newspapers. One favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. Now, unless you live in a really large city, those other cities have only one newspaper and typically is a mouthpiece for the Democrat party. Depending on who does the survey, 85% to 95% of the reporters working in the media are Democrats and vote for the Democratic party candidates. Those surveys can also be found on-line.

  22. Jim
    March 20, 2020 at 5:44 pm

    Your article is itself biased, since you claim sites like Reuters & the AP, amongst others aren't biased.

    • Dave Parrack
      March 20, 2020 at 6:55 pm

      That's because they aren't biased.

      • Jonathan H Steedley
        March 20, 2020 at 10:42 pm

        But they absolutely are biased.
        Saying something is "unbiased" means it doesn't promote 1 side over another.
        All the sites on this list are in fact leftist & actively promote a leftist viewpoint.
        You may agree w/ those biased viewpoints but that doesn't mean they are unbiased--it means you *are* biased.
        Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!

        • Dave Parrack
          March 21, 2020 at 1:39 am

          No, I don't think these sites are biased. They're very fair.

          To counter your point directly, BBC News is constantly accused of being both left-wing and right-wing, which would suggest it's neither.

      • dragonmouth
        March 25, 2020 at 1:53 pm

        Any site or newspaper that supports YOUR views is not biased. Anybody, any media outlet that opposes YOUR views, definitely is biased. That's all there is to it.

        • Bob
          June 6, 2020 at 10:46 am

          You just proved his point with your bias. In fact, I'll bet you think that Fox News is the only biased outlet mentioned (or the other outlets that are on the "right").

  23. Real Human
    March 19, 2020 at 9:08 pm

    I was kinda with you until you said BBC... Oh you troll, you nearly got me lmfao... BBC.... Unbiased ? You really are funny.

    • Mike Paterson
      June 5, 2020 at 7:15 am

      Same here.

  24. Ron Singh
    March 19, 2020 at 8:36 pm

    Missed "Democracy Now" by Amy Goodman. Probablyranks higher than most as a balanced unbiased source of news.

  25. dragonmouth
    March 13, 2020 at 1:23 pm

    This article should have been published on April 1st. Ether that or it has been written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

    "The first says that a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth."
    It may SAY that but the journalists' attitude towards 'truth' can be summed up with a what Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise in 'A Few Good Men" - "The truth?! The truth?! You CAN"T handle the truth!!!" All the media outlets are convinced that the public is a bunch of mental defectives that need their news predigested and regurgitated.

  26. John Smith
    March 13, 2020 at 6:26 am

    Also you are saying "Free From Censorship", do you realize censorship comes from government and not from news sources?

    How can a source claiming to be a news outlet have censorship in it?
    You are confusing bias with censorship. Two different things.

    • Eric
      April 15, 2020 at 2:00 pm

      The bosses of a news outlet will censor news stories all the time. Like when NBC scuttled the part 2 of a story about the conditions in Nike factories. They couldn't have that, because Nike became their sponsor for the Olympics coverage.

    • Eric
      April 15, 2020 at 2:13 pm

      CNN has a strong slant towards "the left"? I would rephrase this as: They have a strong slant towards the democratic party. There's a huge difference. They're actually very pro-establishment, very pro capital, and pretty much agree with the state department on everything when it comes to what's going on in other countries, as do most of the outlets you mentioned. Back in 2005, I tried finding coverage of the 2003 coup in Haiti on Reuters, I couldn't find anything. Similarly, I find the coverage of anything South-America related to be heavily state-department influence. A good example of this is Venezuela vs. Honduras. Honduras has a military coup; barely any coverage. There's strife in Venezuela, the government there is accused of slipping into authoritarianism, maybe doing some not so democratic things. The opposition isn't great either (see, Jacobyn, democracy now); it's complicated. Corporate media coverage of this: Outrage! Maduro's a dictator! The difference here is that the military dictatorship in Honduras is supported by the US. The social democracy in Venezuela is not.

  27. John Smith
    March 13, 2020 at 6:19 am

    BBC and Google news?
    Very unbiased.

  28. Karolina
    February 23, 2020 at 8:33 pm

    BBC is not unbiased , BBC is pro -Palestine thus all the news are anti- Israeli , anti-Christian, everyone in UK knows that and you could see how BBC was manipulating public into Brexit to twist public understanding

  29. SKY
    February 23, 2020 at 5:25 pm

    I rarely comment on internet, but I had some trust over your website. It also helped me in work. But you are totally unaware media, WSJ has a lobby, you can publish anything against any country, people, or organization. I know this very well.

  30. Paul
    February 19, 2020 at 12:18 pm

    BBC unbiased? are you joking!

  31. twistedlefty
    February 18, 2020 at 8:28 am

    i lost hope for this list when i saw ap at the top. clearly you have no clue what unbiased means or you choose to redefine it to fit this narrative. try again

  32. meaty
    February 12, 2020 at 2:16 pm

    If you think the BBC is objective then you haven't been following them for the last 3+ yrs. I see their bias as the same as Russia Today. They have become a propaganda channel and an insult to independent journalism. Current propaganda assignments include their retained anti-Brexit proselytising, and their demonic devotion to man-made climate change shutting down anyone who questions their bias or who offers an alternative viewpoint. They even assess accusations of bias themselves and have found none of it. That is why the majority in the UK want them stripped of their licence fee income.

    • James Frew
      February 12, 2020 at 9:46 pm

      "That is why the majority in the UK want them stripped of their licence fee income."

      There's quite a lot of irony in this statement given the article that you've commented on.

    • Mike Paterson
      June 5, 2020 at 7:22 am

      100% correct!

  33. Daniel Schoonhoven
    February 12, 2020 at 12:39 am

    I wouldn't call the BBC unbiased. While factually correct, many of their articles carry a biased tone.

  34. Louise M. DiPaolo
    February 9, 2020 at 10:49 pm

    Im sorry, these cannot all be safe news sources. Algorithms are written by humans relating to that particular source.

    Wikipedia offers definition of "news". Hone in on "News Value", paragraph two, where it states where that traditionally journalists are supposed write objectively presenting facts in a "sterile" manner and allow the viewer or reader to make their own choice. "Both newspapers and broadcast news programs in the United States are generally expected to remain neutral and avoid bias except for clearly indicated editorial articles or segments." Later this same segment offers an opinion that these values are dead.

    I'd be happier if all the people in elected positions and the media were more civil.

  35. R
    February 5, 2020 at 10:13 am

    'It may seem ironic that US news organizations appear far more censored and filled with pro-government propaganda than British news organizations.'

    What are you getting at here?

  36. R
    February 5, 2020 at 10:12 am

    'It may seem ironic that US news organizations appear far more censored and filled with pro-government propaganda than British news organizations.'

    What is are you getting at here?

  37. Tracy Dean
    January 29, 2020 at 11:29 pm

    These are not unbiased news outlets. These are commentaries of "the facts" from a particular perspective, heavily influenced by an oligarchy in which its executive members wish to oppress, exploit and control the "less-advantaged" members of society by convincing them that those unfortunate people need the elitists to supply their needs, and they voluntarily sell themselves, and their rights, to the ruling class rather than desiring to do for themselves.

  38. Tracy
    January 29, 2020 at 11:20 pm

    These are not unbiased news outlets. The use of personal opinion adjectives alone is a huge indicator that these are commentaries based on a particular perspective of 'the facts". This is a joke. Not a funny one, but a joke.

  39. Mike
    January 23, 2020 at 1:32 am

    Unbiased news? Come on .... there is no such thing, not, at least, as long as humans are involved. Humans are incapable of pure objectivity, pure 'fairness' and so forth. What I am looking for is the 'least biased news'. I enjoyed this article until I read the 'post script' in which it noted that NPR would have made the list if it were not for the fact that it 'leans a little to the left' at times. That comment took the credibility out of the author who called out to me, via this article, to consider his solution to my dilemma of finding unbiased news. He noted regarding NPR that it would have made the primary list if it were not for the fact that "it leans a little to the left at times" .... "a little to the left" ???!!! I despise biased so called 'news' - in truth, I would go so far as to say it just about makes me sick. I despise attempts by anyone to manipulate me..... in any way..... so do we all and NPR is one of 'the primary' reasons that I crave biased reporting - they are among the very WORST. Lets face it, what constitutes biased reporting is not just how something is reported it is, equally so, WHAT is being reported. Emphasis makes all the difference between biased and unbiased reporting AND NPR is perhaps the very worst of the worst. Their choice of things that they report upon is clearly based upon those things that support their (unmistakable) bias and ignore those things that they think will undermine their bias. Nauseating, insulting. Now then, I hate Fox (and the like) just as much as I hate CNN (and the like) - and I do so for the very same reason as I hate NPR; exceeding bias. Again, lets face it, no organization, of ANY sort, as long as they are run by humans, will EVER be free of bias.... the real question is just who is the LEAST biased...... Please help me out here fellow humans who are as desperate for unbiased 'news' as I am.

  40. Kevin Greer
    January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am

    The idea that the BBC is unbiased is simply untrue. As A UK resident I can assure you that the BBC is nothing more than an establishment mouthpiece regurgitating establishment viewpoints and think pieces. Just because it's delivered with a fancy English accent doesn't make it unbiased.

  41. John Irwin
    January 14, 2020 at 9:17 pm

    What a crock! I expect that Dube has been on the doobie if he actually believes this slop.

    Anyone who swallows this load should have their heads examined. Every source mentioned is 100% biased and only idiots would think, even for a second, that this list of so-called unbiased news sources, is anything but fodder for the deer camp out house.

  42. Gary
    January 13, 2020 at 1:14 pm

    The writer of this article is either a puppet for the outlets or has No Clue and just writes what he feels the Ass Press … Does anyone know an Honest News Outlet

    • LarryT
      January 17, 2020 at 5:16 pm

      Try the "Epoch Times". From what I've seen so far, their news is concise, as non-biased as possible, and includes lots of background info. Good luck!

  43. Alexander
    January 10, 2020 at 1:21 pm

    I think that this article is either sarcastic or a joke.
    Of all the mentioned "unbiased" sites, NONE is unbiased.
    Especially on INTERNATIONAL politics.
    And some of them BECAME biased in the lsat 5 years, sites that used to be quite equidistant from a side or another.
    And calling AP, BBC or Al Jazeera unbiased, that is the cherry on the top of the sh_t cake.
    Actually, even this article is biased.

  44. Mick
    January 5, 2020 at 1:36 pm

    This is surely a work of satire.
    If it isn't, then surely someone needs to start learning what journalism is.

  45. Mike Townes
    January 2, 2020 at 5:25 pm

    Your list should include One America News Network... It is an excellent news source.

    • Delicious Pun
      July 9, 2020 at 12:23 am

      Thank you so much for posting this.

  46. eddie staunton
    November 28, 2019 at 12:52 pm

    The BBC is not impartial or un-biased when it comes to the political debate.
    Most of the people in power are political appointees from the David Cameron Tory government.

  47. Andreas
    November 2, 2019 at 6:46 pm

    In our World saturate by minutely news, the truth usually means nothing because one should decide which truth facts to present and in what order. Truth usually should be accompanied by:
    1. knowing the history of the story,
    2. who pays the reporter,
    3. reporter's possible conflict of interests,
    4. his manager's possible conflict of interest
    In the end all this is impossible to put it all in a story which should also be witty. Media knows they cannot escape criticism so they decided not to bother at all; so everybody has his/her media kind to watch and that's all.
    --------This is the reason I watch individual persons I've come to trust, on YOUTUBE. When YOUTUBE becomes biased too I'll stick with wikipedia :)

    • Teresa
      December 2, 2019 at 1:26 pm

      Youtube and wiki are among the most biased these days..

    • Gerry
      December 16, 2019 at 1:10 pm

      wickipedia? unbiased? which planet are you on?

      you tube videos are as biased as the person making them.

  48. The truth
    October 21, 2019 at 9:37 pm

    All 5 of those suggested are mainstream media so what a load of absolute nonsense this article is, Google News? BBC? Reuters? The Wall Street Journal? & the absolute king of modern journalism that feeds propaganda to the rest of them The Associated Press? There’s a saying out there, follow the money trail and you’ll see where it leads you and all your questions and suspicions will be answered at once! That should also tell you who’s behind this publication

    • Teresa
      December 2, 2019 at 1:27 pm

      Absolutely what I was thinking about this list

    • Mick
      January 5, 2020 at 1:38 pm

      I thought it was satire at first. Most middle school kids I know would laugh at loud at such a list.
      When did Chomsky write Man.Cons, about 30 years ago? And at that time, the basic thesis was obvious and established, he filled in the details. At this point, zombies are running around it seems, holy smokes.

  49. David
    October 14, 2019 at 12:33 pm

    BBC, and Google News is without a doubt biased, Wall Street Journal is a bit too but not as bad. As of recently they have been also spreading misinformation that they have had to correct time and again. They don't care though because people never see the correction just the misinformation initially posted.

  50. Col
    October 13, 2019 at 11:46 am

    This article came up when I searched 'New sites you can trust'. I scanned down the list and couldn't read any further once I saw Fox News listed as a site to trust. Fox News is a bastion, all right.
    As for Michael McElroy's comment, his second sentence needs amending thus:
    'The only people who SEE the rampant bias and constant regurgitated lies and canned statements across all the self proclaimed "News Sites" are radical left-wing troglodytes'
    Plainly he's American and was waiting for you to open to get his comment in first. I'd put him down as a right-wing Republican troll.

    • David
      October 14, 2019 at 12:27 pm

      Fox news is not on the list. It was used as an example of biased new to show contrast FYI. you should really read before you make assumptions.

    • David
      October 14, 2019 at 12:29 pm

      Fox news is not on this list. It was used as an example of biased news to show contrast to the Wall Street Journal. You should really read before you make assumptions.

    • Evike
      November 9, 2019 at 4:33 pm

      Like Michael, there will be lots of right-wing Republicans refuting this. Their only news source is Fox News and other conservative sites that support their views. Here they come with their labeling and name calling, as in "left-wing troglodytes." This person obviously does not know the rules of logic - only ad hominems in place of actual thinking.

  51. Roger Schroppe
    October 11, 2019 at 9:46 pm

    I lost me when you listed Google News. Google's search engine is notorious for not only spying on people but also filtering responses to queries based upon a liberal political bias. In fact, according to Gallup polls, the only one of the sources that Left leaning and Right leaning American agree upon as unbiased is the Wall Street Journal. Also your assessment of Al Jazeera of impartial is a bit of a stretch.

    • Alexander
      January 10, 2020 at 1:24 pm


  52. Michael McElroy
    October 11, 2019 at 6:04 pm

    The article is biased. The only people who don't see the rampant bias and constant regurgitated lies and canned statements across all the self proclaimed "News Sites" are radical left-wing troglodytes. The lack of objectivity and desire to report the facts and deliver truthful news to the public is not only a travesty, it is crime against society, and very dangerous. PBS/NPR repeat the same lies and project the same biases and should have been defunded decades ago. Mass media today in the US is no different than the Ministers of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, and similar to what we see in China and Russia State controlled media. Add to this the prevalence of radicals in education and we have a recipe for extremists that support the destruction of our society, our country, and our Freedom. The ignorance and stupidity of the left-wing radicals is a serious threat to our country.

  53. Ty
    October 7, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    Google, WSJ, BBC are all biased. Hell, I’ve even seen some bias coming out of AP lately. It’s extremely hard to find anything without a spin on it these days. The news isn’t the news anymore and I’m afraid it never will be again.

  54. cee b
    October 3, 2019 at 1:57 pm

    bbc news is the most bias corporation in the whole of the uk arguable worse than sky news or the daily mail!

  55. who knows
    September 29, 2019 at 6:38 am

    Google news is extremely biased and isolates it's sources down to a ridiulous bunch. That's exactly how I ended up here with this list because I habitually go to google news, even though I have long been irritated by it's narrow political viewpoint. Then again, maybe it's the all seeing algorithmic internet eye that it simply orchestrating what I should read because of my search habits.

    • FPOC
      October 2, 2019 at 2:46 pm


    • Clement
      November 5, 2019 at 4:12 pm

      Dear WHO KNOWS;

      I believe you've found "it": Robotic-everything; soon perhaps cyborgs one and all. Mankind's recollection versus Machine learning; we are in a real fix now...yet fear naught; giggle will fix everything so YOU don't have to be burdened wit making decisions!

  56. Ste Edwards
    September 28, 2019 at 6:57 am

    BBC? You joking? OK. How much did they pay you to write that?

  57. Paul Aleksinas
    September 25, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    Google is bias

  58. Atul Desai
    September 5, 2019 at 6:56 am

    I do not know nine principles of journalism but my opinion is NEWS as the very
    word suggests is one which comes from North East West and South.That means all
    directions.A journalist should not have liberty to twist it in favour or against anyone.
    Let the readers be the judge.

  59. Atul Desai
    September 5, 2019 at 6:39 am

    As I understand, AP News and Reuters are agencies who receive all the news and
    give the same to publishers without any change.So to say news as it happened.Wall Street Journal publishes financial and market related news.Google News I have never read so it is not possible but BBC is biased.If BBC is the only news agency left,I will stop reading news though I am a newsjunky.I read news from all over the world and form my own opinion.

    • Louise
      February 9, 2020 at 10:58 pm

      Yes. The article essays the same about AP News and Reuters. I'm glad to hear from a news junky.

  60. Jonathan Z
    August 26, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    why is this page showing up first on google search anyways? BBC? google news? lol

    can someone suggest a good news site in the comment pls

    • Sai
      September 10, 2019 at 6:41 am

      This list is nkt even unbiased it's more left leaning and maybe a part of their propaganda.

    • steve
      September 17, 2019 at 10:47 pm

      there are non, Most are Biased if not out right lies the guardian, inderpendent and BBC being some of the worse offenders for biased news as well as out and out lies. you try using google or MSMN and again just biased nonsense. the problem you have is the descriptive words they use to describe something such as the latest on britex, the country wants to leave by a now an ever increasing majority, the thing is most that want to leave are hard working brits who don't have the time to sit on social media or sit for days and weeks outside of parliament shouting. I even got stopped in the street and interviewed as soon as they found out I was anti eu and voted to leave they didn't want to talk to me I found out they only wanted to speak with pro eu remain voters. they where doing interviews and a major study in to how the people wanted to stay in the eu, even though the majority of the people they spoke to and subsequently ignored said they wanted to leave the corrupt dictatorship of the eu.

  61. Kelly Martin
    August 26, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    You really need to take the BBC off this list, as a Brit, it's totally a corrupt news source, it used to be good, not anymore.

  62. Rockstarrseven7
    August 23, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    Your list is sewage and all serpent, Google News, lol, I just watched Google slander Trump running with Hillarys Russian collusion lie and brainwashing the populace to become antitrump. Google, WSJ, this whole list is sewage. Google selling out America to China and full beast system demonic tyranny. This whole list is serpent left devils legion bullshit.

    • Sai
      September 10, 2019 at 6:43 am

      True completely left leaning, all people from all around the world are talking crap about it.

  63. Andrew
    August 22, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    I sure miss Walter Cronkite. As in science, when news is politicized it is no longer news, just an opinion. And we all know about those.

    • Hugh E. Brennan
      September 2, 2019 at 9:00 pm

      Uncle Walter spun the Tet offensive and the fighting in Hue to the detriment of the American forces. He made a victory sound like a defeat and helped destroy South Vietnam. Not a good example. He was a patriot and had great delivery, but he was a man of the left and reported as such.

    • Hugh E. Brennan
      September 2, 2019 at 9:02 pm

      Cronkite made the US and ARVN victory in Tet and Hue into defeats in the public mind. He helped destroy South Vietnam.

  64. Mohit Mishra
    August 20, 2019 at 11:10 am

    I was googling for "reliable sources for authentic global news", came to this page and seemed promising till you listed BBC here.

    • Sai
      September 10, 2019 at 6:44 am

      Yes same but i saw AP in the list and as I'm aware of their bigotry i kept scrolling down to see if BBC is present and then it was confirmed.

      This guy must look at his definition of unbiased again.

  65. Tom
    August 20, 2019 at 4:43 am

    BBC has always been my default news source because I believed it to be balanced and impartial in its reporting, until I visited Hong Kong during the recent unrest. What I read on the BBC was biased by omission, showing selective incidents to drive a certain narrative. I was sure how simplistically it presented the situation. That’s why I’m here looking for an alternative. I’ll check out the other sources you mentioned, but if they’re the same as the BBC I’ll be disappointed.

    • steve
      September 17, 2019 at 10:53 pm

      yep, travelled a lot of places over the years been in areas that the BBC have reported on and they angle it to show people a very different picture. as I said above I was stopped in the street and asked if I could be interviewed on the current britex debacle and how we needed deeper integration in to the eu… I just said what? we need out of this completely madding situation and out of this dictatorship. as soon as they knew I was anti eu the didn't want to listen to my opinion, they stopped lots more and the large majority said similar, they only then recorded those who where pro eu (which was only a hand full of those they stopped) but this will be made out to be the majority by the lies that the media want to tell! the guardian and independent are some of the worst for making up lies the BBC like running shows again with hand picked audience members that suit their ideals

  66. Amy Daugherty
    August 14, 2019 at 11:39 pm

    Did they really mention Google, the MOST biased of them all? SMH.

  67. Bill H
    August 12, 2019 at 2:54 pm

    I am surprised google news is listed here. I visited this site trying to get away from google news. They are loaded with articles from CNN, MSNBC Salon etc. even after filtering as much as possible out. Just give me the straight facts - I don't want the constant color used to jab at Trump. He does do some good, and some readers would like to hear about that.

    • Gerry
      December 16, 2019 at 1:15 pm

      I would love to hear something good about trump, but he would have to change for that to happen.

  68. Subhakanta Sahoo
    August 9, 2019 at 9:01 pm

    One of the most biased news agency is BBC followed by al Jazeera. I have seen al Jazeera spreading Islamic propaganda and supporting Islamic countries. They produce news far from truth.

    • mulsanne92
      September 16, 2019 at 5:17 am

      Supporting Islamic countries is not a bad thing. Islam is not a bad thing. There are Islamic extremists, just as there are christian extremists. But you know that. You just wanted to wave your bigot flag a little ; )

  69. ak47
    August 7, 2019 at 11:19 pm

    This author is high in drugs or just paid to write this article that Google/ AP / Reuters as unbias news channels. I called it *******! Google is a liberal crap company. AP and Reuters are owned by liberal ******** CEO. Please stop your misinformation!

  70. Teresa
    August 5, 2019 at 10:56 pm

    HAHA- you are kidding me! even one from the list is not INDEPENDENT wonder if in these days you people know what independence means ...

  71. Bob
    July 28, 2019 at 12:51 pm

    The bbc! Is that a joke? The bbc is one of the most politically biased news sources you can find.
    Biased broadcasting corp

    • Mass
      August 1, 2019 at 8:51 am

      This ^
      The BBC used to be unbiased, but it's been infiltrated by the Left, heavily.
      Petitions to have them shut down routinely hit well over 100,000 signatures, and there's growing calls to have their funding from the tax payer pulled.
      The BBC s on the clock as a public organisation.

  72. Bob
    July 28, 2019 at 12:50 pm

    The bbc! Are you having a laugh? The bbc is one of the most politically biased news sources you can get .
    It's not called the biased broadcasting corp for nothing.

  73. Jack the Liberal
    July 24, 2019 at 10:33 pm

    Aww that's cute, he put Fox News and The WSJ next to each other totally unaware that both are owned by Rupert Murdoch (Cue evil music).

  74. Chris P.
    July 24, 2019 at 4:12 pm

    This entire article is biased. Your report on each channel or source was based on your personal opinion. The news media is a cancer and their is no fair reporting, especially in America. Our president could solve world hunger tomorrow and news source headlines would read for the liberals "TRUMP CAUSES OBESITY" and for the republicans "TRUMP IS THE MESSIAH" . Our world no longer values truth only opinion and the opinion of the rich and famous control it all. We are nothing more than walking wallets and they prefer that your money come from government funding. So the more people relying on the US government the better. The media will use whatever mean nessecary to brain wash and control. Theirs is the only opinion that matters.

    • Bill H
      August 12, 2019 at 2:55 pm

      Well said

  75. Andy Anderson
    July 19, 2019 at 3:11 pm

    You obviously have difficultly recognising bias when it's staring you in the face. The BBC and Google News are completely anti-Brexit, just read the leading article on G.N. and the four contributions were from remainer rags, the Guardian x 3 and the independent. You can't trust anyone these days.

    • Ryan Williams
      July 27, 2019 at 1:04 am

      What are you talking (lying) about? The BBC relentlessly pushes Brexit and gives airtime to the far right.
      Any sensible person who wants to keep their rights (the people you dubbed "rags") switched the BBC off years ago.

  76. Griffin Hunt
    July 14, 2019 at 5:03 pm

    The BBC has gone completely "woke". Has that not been noticed by the author of this article? Google and the other Silicon Valley tech giants are developing into a threat for liberal democracies. They are influencing public opinion through their algorithms which are designed to "filter out" centrist or conservative political viewpoints. They are also actively influencing the outcome of the next presidential election in the US with their subversive activities. Not good for democracy, not good at all.

    • mulsanne92
      September 16, 2019 at 5:21 am

      Fox news does the same thing, shut upppppp. Centrism and conservatism are destroying the country (and world) a thousand times more than liberalism. Filtering them out would be a damn dream come true, and save a lot of lives money effort and time

  77. Crunchybucketofoats
    July 11, 2019 at 4:43 pm

    Apparently is a biased left-leaning news source. How dumb do you think we are?

  78. Bodenhamer
    July 3, 2019 at 7:17 am

    lol ok

  79. Richard Norton
    June 29, 2019 at 3:43 pm

    Google News? You have to be kidding. They are far left for sure and censor out conservative news every chance they can get.

  80. Richard Alden
    June 25, 2019 at 2:44 am

    The idea that Google News is unbiased is questionable. Google is considered the industry leader in machine learning. One type of machine learning (classification) is a process by which one or more datasets are used to generate an algorithm (model). The model is then run against raw data (in this case news stories on 3rd party web sites such as AP, CNN, Fox News and so on). The likely entry point for bias is in the choice of the datasets used to generate the model.

  81. Unknown Unknown
    June 24, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    You have got to be kidding me with this list! The information they report is, for the most part, available to anyone. The issue is that most do not have the time to track down the raw information. But when I do I find that all of these "unbiased" sources are very Left leaning. For crying out loud! I just want the news without the propaganda.

  82. Jim Bateman
    June 20, 2019 at 12:16 am

    Anyone who believes the phony, attempts to show Non-biased from Google...the champions of Hypocrisy, and proven censorship...needs to get a life.
    Google controls nearly everyone who uses the Internet in some way. They have become the Monopoly Of Biased, Liberal False Facts...they call Truth that people easily believe...BECAUSE GOOGLE SAID IT.
    I do not trust Google, and when I asked for Honest, Good Information, and Facts. They steered me to this site. In other words. YOU cannot find honest answers on Google today. They are simply another tool of the Left, who are dedicated to bringing ruin to the United States of America through Hatred, and Power, devised by the need for Socialism to replace Our Constitution.

    • Franco
      July 18, 2019 at 5:08 am

      you are retarded. Google is run by billionaires, and their efforts have contributed to the election of a billionaire retard as President. You have already won. Google is a tool of the Right, and it's an effective one. Stop biting the hand that's feeding you. We know that you love Putin, and that's OK. So does Google.

  83. Jim Bateman
    June 20, 2019 at 12:07 am

    As I suspected. Not even Google has the honest integrity to tell the truth when it comes to where someone may find the truth. Google leads the way on BIAS, so they must be Biased when pretending to present Honest, Truthful reporting with their list of KNOWN, PROVEN. Left-leaning sites.
    Google has control over nearly every person who uses the Internet for any kind of information sharing. Shame on all of you for pretending to be something you can never be when it comes to controlling people enough to convince them Lies are Truth.

  84. Stephen M. Dwyer
    June 14, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    You are a JOKE ..MOST of you'er so called unbiased news sources are OWNED by the CABAL...So obviously your another one. LOSER.

  85. Jeremy
    June 8, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    I think the authors of this news article first need to learn what bias is, so they themselves can stop engaging in it.

  86. Jack
    June 7, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    LOL Al Jazeera is unbiased? They're literally posting holocaust denialism videos in their arabic speaking publiations. Whoever did not spend more than five seconds looking into AJ.

  87. alex
    June 6, 2019 at 11:57 am

    Lol so much for info about unbiased places to go then saying it might seem ironic that British news have any valuable unbiased information in comparison with America, just shows how narrow minded you are really, I live in England and we don't give the slightest crud about American gun laws, might think theirs very obviously deeper social problems resulting in such high shooting rates, and this is coming from someone who despises most of this countries news and its owners, but saying we constantly go on about American gun laws is laughable, then to list BBC as a legitimate news source straight after, just lol

  88. Allan
    June 5, 2019 at 12:35 pm

    All was going well until I saw the bbc listed. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

    • alex
      June 6, 2019 at 11:58 am

      lol yep, BBC are a nasty piece of work when it comes to covering their short comings, you do get some good info on their, but can be highly biased, and in a way that's worse, their clearly trying to get you on side then slipping in biased stories

      • Graeme
        July 14, 2019 at 2:18 pm

        The BBC is absolute toilet, on a par with the guardian.

  89. Scott Bohn
    June 3, 2019 at 7:14 pm

    Your joking right? My bad. I was looking for an unbiased list of unbiased media outlets. Must be on another page.

  90. Bill
    June 2, 2019 at 11:34 am

    What a joke!
    Was this article written to be facetious?

  91. yeet
    May 30, 2019 at 5:20 am

    Not one of these is unbiased whatsoever.

  92. Threedawgs123
    May 26, 2019 at 3:38 pm

    These news sources that this article/blog reports as unbiased are some of the most biased on the planet.

  93. Amy
    May 20, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    "Are there no unbiased news sources you can turn to anymore? The short answer is an emphatic yes."
    In other words, "Yes, there no unbiased news sources."
    I know what you meant, but it's not what you said.

    • Dua Draata
      May 25, 2019 at 6:58 pm

      I started to write a statement regarding this "article", if you want to call it that. I was going to ask the writer if he is on drugs or something. He has to be hallucinating to call NPR unbiased. Or how about the AP. What a joke. I guess that's why we can lump him in with the rest of the Fake News crowd. They just can't print honest news. Too bad.

      • Threedawgs123
        May 26, 2019 at 3:39 pm


  94. Eric Michael LaMarche .
    May 16, 2019 at 5:00 pm


    • Threedawgs123
      May 26, 2019 at 3:44 pm

      The ONLY way to effective deal with this level and severity of tyranny is to VIOLENTLY erradicate it, primarily by Guerilla Warfare and associated tactics. Fortunately it only takes 3-5% ofnthe population to defeat even the most powerful enemy, and always has been the case, as proven time and again by history and studies.

    • Bill
      June 2, 2019 at 11:38 am

      oh yeah, right?

  95. Brad Dougherty
    May 9, 2019 at 12:07 am

    Might want to reconsider the BBC. For the past few years I have been a big BBC fan. But the past few months their coverage has gotten progressively more and more and more biased. They've been showing obvious favoritism towards certain liberal American politicians to the extent that its laughable. Not just in the way they spin the stories (although that certainly is happening), but just also in the way they present the people. For example they consistently use extremely flattering photos of liberal politicians, but photo's of conservatives constantly make them look crazy and disheveled. There reporting is getting more biased as well, take the way the cover President Trump. I do not like President Trump, but the BBC goes out its way to make him look awful. They seem to title any story about him to make him look evil, and morally corrupt beyond what he actually is. Than their coverage has gotten more biased as well. They are constantly running little "fluff" stories with obvious political aims. Its sad.

    • Zed
      May 31, 2019 at 10:06 am

      Fully agree, but sadly you just scratched the surface when you use Trump as the basis of your argument.
      Even BBC recently admitted that its reporting falls short of the standards we expect from unbiased news dissemination. If I were to start a list (which can be fact checked) of why BBC news is nothing short of trash (including all those listed in the article), it would take me hours to complete this comment. True factual independent journalism is rare because it does not pander to sponsors, lobbyists, or compromised editor-in-chiefs.

  96. Jennifer McBryde
    May 8, 2019 at 2:57 pm

    This article is inaccurate. Google News, BBC & NPR are totally biased. C-Span selectively edits clips.

    • Threedawgs123
      May 26, 2019 at 3:45 pm

      So is the A.P.

  97. Tony Nesta
    April 27, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    Can I comment I make on a Website be only seen by me? I have a feeling that it is especially if the website wants to censor someone.

  98. Matt
    April 19, 2019 at 6:41 am

    Many seem to criticize the, in my view, personal choices of this site; however, none appear to suggest any acceptable media outlet. Moreover, too many choose words of the hands such as right or left that was just presented in messages and that only brings two colors to the picture. Anyhow, the debate's dull to say the least. My humble opinion is that there are too few UNBIAS official messengers as the world is still one huge jungle considering all the problems we have. It's a miracle there're only proxy wars around. All in all, the independent or motley clue should be considered when the debate's on but open minds please as there are more dark site sources without credentials which just complicate the messengers' responsibilities.

    • David jr
      August 28, 2019 at 4:49 pm

      I want hear their suggestions instead of bashing others. At least if your going to bash it have something to follow up on.
      “Google is trash , but “ “ is somewhat better”

    • dragonmouth
      December 6, 2019 at 8:26 pm

      @Matt & David Jr.:
      No one is suggesting a acceptable or alternate sources/sites because there are NONE. Every site, every media outlet, every journalist presents facts with their own slant/bias.

  99. Joe
    April 11, 2019 at 11:37 pm

    This article was clearly written by somebody with left-wing views who considers media that promotes left-wing ideals to be "unbiased". Here in the UK, many people consider the BBC to be very biased. It strongly and unashamedly promotes left-wing views whilst pretending to be unbiased. The BBC is paid by long-suffering license payers who are told they can end up in prison if they don't pay for it even if they don't want to be subjected to its propaganda.

  100. Thomas C Pattersonf
    April 6, 2019 at 9:06 pm

    Are you kidding me these are the drive by media

  101. Bob Stratton
    April 5, 2019 at 1:53 pm

    The bbc are completely biased with respect to Brexit. They appear to openly back a remain position. I downloaded the full brexit page under the politics page. Out of 82 articles, the were only 2 that were pro Brexit. About 10 could be characterised as neutral. The others were clearly pro remain.

    Sad state of affairs

  102. Hannibal Moot
    April 3, 2019 at 11:38 am

    I usually enjoy MUO, but please, please, do not write about news, bias, or politics, etc. You are soooo out of touch as to what "bias" is, it is ruining the site for anything else you cover.

    Stick to tech, etc. and don't wade into the fake news area which you know nothing about.

  103. Scott Schuster
    April 1, 2019 at 2:37 am

    Al Jazeera unbiased? Thats looney tunes, man. This article is obvious guerilla warfare at its most basic and most sophomoric.
    Al Jazeera? You mean the network that espouses the view that Israel is a Jewish-supremecist state? ....... are either stupid.....or a liar. Since youre pretending to be a journalist.....(and quite badly, might I add.....) Im gonna go with liar.

    • Zed
      May 31, 2019 at 10:37 am

      I agree with you on Al Jazeera 100%..... but your point is very ironic because the only argument you use against Al Jazeera is actually false.

      Israel is a Jewish supremacist state based on the indisputable fact that they recently approved a legislation that essentially defines Israel first and foremost as a Jewish state (there are many other facts that point to the same conclusion). If you're not satisfied with that fact alone, can I suggest you read about the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban South Africa which is usually boycotted by the US because it equates Zionism (the principle ideology behind the foundation of Israel) to racism, but maybe you'll argue that South Africans don't know much about racism.

      Very few realise that the root of the problem is in fact labelling and segregation thereafter (example Iraq which against popular belief was a secular state in the 80s). Palestinians are Semitic Jews, Christians, and Muslims, among other minorities (today largely Muslims and no Jews for obvious reasons). Sadly divisions were created because Palestinians as a whole were labelled Arabs based primarily on language and religion which was prevalent in the region as opposed to their Semitic ethnicity (most Palestinian Muslims are effectively descendants of Jews which makes the whole conflict even more ironic). Those who labelled them as Arabs and those who adopted such labels are equally responsible for the troubles we see today. But this does not excuse the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Zionists.

      Rather than argue with you, can I suggest you read books written by reputable Israeli Historians such as Illan Pappe, Shlomo Sand, or Avi Shlaim on this subject. In case you feel all 3 are Jewish anti-semites, can I then suggest you read works from the self-proclaimed Zionist Benny Morris who documents the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - his only issue is that the Zionists didn't properly finish the job.

      Peace and love to all.

  104. Char Davis
    March 31, 2019 at 12:55 am

    Interesting that you comment on Fox News as an example of being biased yet not a word about CNN or MSNBC as being biased on the left. At least Fox has commentators from the left which is more than i can say about the other two. Clearly searching for unbiased news gets you biased news!

  105. Char Davis
    March 31, 2019 at 12:53 am

    Interesting that you comment on Fox News as being biased but not a word on CNN or MSNBC? Clearly you are biased or you would have mentioned that as being biased on the left and Fox on the right. We hate this!

  106. Juan
    March 28, 2019 at 6:41 pm

    Try searching, "Hillary Clinton e" on Google and see what the recommended searches are. First thing should be "Hillary Clinton email," right? Wrong!! None of the recommended searches say anything about "email."

    Now go to Bing and search "Hillary Clinton e"

    First recommended search is "Hillary Clinton email." Not only that, but 5 out of the 8 recommended searches are related to her email scandal.

    That is really messed up.

    • Louise
      February 9, 2020 at 11:12 pm

      Thank you. Off to Bing I go.

  107. Louie
    March 27, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    You must be kidding me Unbiased news sources??????????This are you on drugs?

  108. DAY
    March 27, 2019 at 5:40 am

    OAN is the best news site now.

  109. Bluetooth
    March 20, 2019 at 1:45 am

    What a crock!! First one is left-wing AP.

  110. Jim
    March 7, 2019 at 2:00 pm

    It's amazing that you use Fox news as your example of biased news. Multiple researches have been made for pro/anti Trump news story's. Fox, 48-49% anti Trump. CNN, 98% anti trump. MSNBC, 96% anti trump. And Google news shares mostly, as you put it, "positive spin on their favored candidates"
    Swing and a miss folks. Try again

    • Bob
      April 30, 2019 at 9:34 pm

      Fox News is the worst, should be renamed the Trump Channel

  111. Edmund Roache
    February 24, 2019 at 5:21 pm

    What a joke. The BBC is dripping with liberal bias. A story about unbiased news written by a biased source is about as unhelpful as it gets. The foxes are out in droves guarding those chicken coops.

  112. Kay Bar
    February 18, 2019 at 2:27 am

    You mentioned NPR sometimes leans too far to the left. They don't just lean to the left, but they are the left. They just are more subtle in presentation. Almost all of their stories are biased in favor of the left. It's disappointing.

  113. Maxten
    February 16, 2019 at 3:05 am

    EVERY ORGANIZATION LISTED HERE IS BIAS!!! I keep my own tally in a spreadsheet based on neutrality, truth, and lies that I can unequivocally verify myself. Only one news organization stood out as being the most neutral, but I have caught all of them in lies. The only way to know for sure who is the most trusted is to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! I will not share my findings as that must be done you, otherwise your just accepting someones word for it!! How do you know someone random person's words aren't offset by their bias? I will give you a hint though. Find the news organizations that aren't attacking one side or the other.

    • Maxten
      February 16, 2019 at 3:42 am

      I missed the "Worth Mentioning".. I do agree with the C-Span statement. Pew Research does help researching facts, but I wouldn't completely rely on it. Use multiple sources. I used to be a fan of NPR till I started researching the facts. Now I realize it's a joke of a news organization. Never hear of Christian Science Monitor, and Al Jazeera used to be great, but I lost trust a long time ago.

      • Maxten
        February 16, 2019 at 4:25 am

        I should also probably mention that "Google" is the WORST source for news since your results are filtered. Always remember that social media, and most search engines are filtered. Some by their own bias, some by your own bias, and others by both. I will only use unfiltered search engines such as "DuckDuckGo" or "Yandex"

    • Leslie Hinebaugh
      February 16, 2019 at 9:59 pm

      Every organization listed is totally biased.

  114. Laney B.
    February 11, 2019 at 8:28 am

    How convenient to mention Fox News and not the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC.
    And Google News is in your list of unbiased news websites? You must be kidding.

    • Ashley W.
      February 12, 2019 at 1:35 pm

      “On the other hand, 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.”

  115. Laney B.
    February 11, 2019 at 8:23 am

    Funny how only Fox news is mentioned and not CNN, CNBC, The Washington Post just to name some...
    Google news in the lust of unbiased websites ??? You must be kidding,

  116. Pablito guerrero
    February 6, 2019 at 7:43 pm

    You wrote, "they published news stories with a positive spin for their own favored candidate ." These sites tow the line for a party, not just a candidate. In fact call it pro-commies party. Who is the owner of Fox news?

  117. Pablit0
    February 6, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    Yeah right, I'm gonna use this list. Provided by your friendly neighborhood unbiased algorithm put in place by very biased humans. By the way, what happened to Mr. Alex Jones?

  118. Jimmy Boy
    February 5, 2019 at 3:46 pm

    Come on guys I know that he is inaccurate with some of the websites, but think about how many articles he wrote. He also could have looked at a fake source and didn't realize it. Instead of attacking this guy because he is a little inaccurate maybe you should sit back and think "maybe he is out of his comfort zone on this" or "what sources did he look at because his information is quite inaccurate". Besides I'm sure you guys have been wrong more than a few times in your life. Never go to a website expecting it to be a perfect source of information because there is no such thing.

    • Laney B.
      February 11, 2019 at 8:32 am

      No, he is totally wrong here and that must be said! This is misinformation and exactly the subject of his article! Totally biased article. Name Fox News and not MSNBC, CNN. While including BBC as an unbiased website???? Where did he get his information????!!!!

  119. Anthony
    February 3, 2019 at 4:33 am

    Up is down. Wrong is right. Perfect example of bias in the press. Thank you.

  120. Charles
    January 29, 2019 at 12:31 am

    This Author has lost their marbles, both the AP and Reuters are owned by the Rothschild Family??? aka Globalist Satanic Elite. Then there is calling Google the inventors of Search Engine Censorship for communist China unbiased? Do some basic research before you put out such misleading articles such as this, your making this publication look like FAKE NEWS.

  121. Will Smith
    January 28, 2019 at 5:22 pm

    This article is the worst article on news sites I have ever read. The author must have been trying to collect the most biased news sites on the Internet. Google News and Al Jazeera unbiased? What a joke! Plus the author included some just bad journalism sites like Reuters, how many fabricated stories and photos has Reuters included again and again. I could not find the author's name on the article but he or she should seek a position that does not require any critical thinking at all.

    • Jimmy Boy
      February 5, 2019 at 3:34 pm

      Maybe you should actually look at the website and you'll see who wrote the article you uncultured piece of hairless ape.

  122. fire boy
    January 26, 2019 at 5:08 am

    Wow, Mr. Ryan Dube, to write such an article as you have here, says that you think your readers are in love with you and will believe every word you utter! And I see that I'm the 398 who did not agree with this complete BS. of yours! What FAKE NEWS if I have ever read FAKE NEWS "EVER"!
    I will be watching for the name Ryan Dube on "ALL" articles I read from now own from "MUD"!

    Wow wow, I came here expecting to learn about new unbiased news websites, instead I'm hit with soundings like Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin tangled love affair over their own BS!

  123. Jawad
    January 20, 2019 at 5:09 pm

    I was happy when I saw the title and quite disappointed in the content: Al Jazeera is definitely a biased channel and many other channels you named. AlJazeera changed her news according to her alliances in different times. Irony is you said it yourself. Just check how the channel is funded, how any channel is funded and you will see how it affects the news they broadcast. A channel may be biased in an area and unbiased in another area. No channel or newspaper will publish a news that may harm people who fund it. As living in both middle eastern country and in a european one, I have noticed the best way to get an accurate news is to read it from several sources crossing fingers the truth might be somewhere in the midlle or better talk to locals to people who actually live there. Thanks to social media, that’s possible

  124. ron
    January 18, 2019 at 11:23 pm

    I don't think those 5 sources you named are unbiased. I see it in the WSJ just like I see it in Newsweek,.... Reuters. There was a time when they had less bias but it's been awhile. I comes down to the descriptive difference between Illegal alien, immigrant, undocumented, migrant, asylum seeker. What would they be called if they crashed a checkpoint at Dulles Airport? This writer is obviously biased to make these assertions.

  125. Mike Jones
    January 15, 2019 at 11:13 pm

    As soon as I saw BBC I started laughing. Whoever wrote this joke has no idea what journalism is and should be fired lol

    • Matt Kat
      January 16, 2019 at 7:07 am

      My thoughts exactly the moment I saw the BBC! Judging by how Google can bias search results, I won't even venture to see what they're capable of doing to the news.

      • Ron Johnson
        January 28, 2019 at 3:08 pm

        Agree 100% with this reply. Google is paying government fines ww for bias search results. What makes you think they do not do the same for their news articles. There is definitely an agenda coming from the Alphabet crew.

        • Spence
          February 2, 2019 at 11:24 pm

          I found this article because I was looking for an alternative to the BBC!

          It tries to hide it but the articles are very left leaning and socialist. Been reading the BBC for over a decade and recently it’s gone off a cliff ever since the Brexit referendum.

  126. MOSFET
    January 15, 2019 at 2:44 am

    This list is complete nonsense. More bias here than a whole truckload of transistors.

    • BJT
      March 5, 2019 at 6:00 pm

      Nice one!

  127. kilobit
    January 5, 2019 at 9:27 am

    Your article is obviously biased as heck. Only one you got right was WSJ, the rest are bastions of liberal propaganda.

    • donaldo
      January 30, 2019 at 4:04 pm

      Fox news,you are joking of course ?? BBC is totally biased and not on the left/liberal side, Google news another one, I was waiting to see you put Global Times and NYT and Trump twitter daily !! on your list.
      Sorry, but you obviously do not understand what unbiased actually means..

      • Jay
        February 5, 2019 at 8:10 am

        "BBC is totally biased and not on the left/liberal side". Huh? I think that odd sentence is trying to simply say - "BBC leans right". This is a great example where "less is more" and makes one question your judgment on anything.

        BBC is pretty moderate, but may actually lean left at times.

        • John Smith
          February 10, 2019 at 12:54 pm

          Total nonsense. Comedians may be mostly left-leaning but BBC News is the perfect example of establishment propaganda, relying on government sources, supporting government and corporate interests including war, thinly-veiled attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and anything left, sycophantic coverage of the royal family...I could go on. Those who think BBC news is left must themselves by on the right of Mussolini.

    • Melody
      April 19, 2019 at 9:13 pm

      The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News. Need I say more?

      From Investopedia:

      The Wall Street Journal is controlled by Rupert Murdoch via Dow Jones Publications, which in turn is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Murdoch owns a controlling 39.4% voting stake in both News Corp and 21st Century Fox. News Corp purchased the newspaper for $6 billion in 2007 from the Bancroft family. It is a conservative, business-oriented publication, but it is less overtly political than Murdoch's other major media outlet, Fox News.

  128. kilobit
    January 5, 2019 at 9:25 am

    Are you kidding me? Aside from the WSJ you missed big time here. AP number 1? bahahahaha

    • Melody
      April 19, 2019 at 9:08 pm

      The Wall Street Journal is quite conservative as noted in Investopedia. You have to know that any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch would have to be, the same man that owns Fox News.

      The Wall Street Journal is controlled by Rupert Murdoch via Dow Jones Publications, which in turn is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Murdoch owns a controlling 39.4% voting stake in both News Corp and 21st Century Fox. News Corp purchased the newspaper for $6 billion in 2007 from the Bancroft family. It is a conservative, business-oriented publication, but it is less overtly political than Murdoch's other major media outlet, Fox News.

  129. ItIsILudo
    December 29, 2018 at 10:25 am

    BBC? Al Jazeera? Nothing honest about it. They are very antisemitic

  130. kashif Abbas
    December 27, 2018 at 5:53 am

    BBC , C SPSN, Al Jazeera and Rauters are not unbiased and independent news sources

  131. Mike
    December 27, 2018 at 4:32 am

    The BBC...Unbiased.....your joking right?

  132. QSAINT
    December 11, 2018 at 11:47 am

    Top 5 Unbiased World News Websites Free From Censorship. You are so full of shit its not funny

    • Larry
      December 24, 2018 at 1:53 am

      Qsaint how right you are. These Quote -Unquote "unbiased news" articles, agencies, etc. are so full it I could not believe how gullible and stupid they think people must be. These are the worst offenders of the truth and I just hope and pray that these corporate heads will "literally roll" when the indictments begin to be served. Praise GOD that evil does not win and the wicked liars will be slain by the evil they have perpetuated on the innocent.

  133. LW
    December 10, 2018 at 1:39 am

    All of these are politically biased.

  134. Donald Bush Rotchild
    December 6, 2018 at 9:59 pm

    I thought this was the unbias news. AP and Reuters are own by are paid by NSA, Fox are BS. And BBC might do if you are desprate

  135. mike mccrary
    December 6, 2018 at 5:09 am

    I wonder why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC were not mentioned as bastions of liberal bias? Why just mention Fox? I wonder.....

  136. Elmer T. Jones
    December 5, 2018 at 4:48 pm

    I want unbiased, clutter-free text news with no ads. That is how I found this article. But your listing Google News as unbiased renders this information useless.

    Example : Yesterday Google News Headlines had as their top news story a Huffington Post essay about how Steven Colbert delivered a withering takedown of Donald Trump.

    You obviously work for big media and are part of the problem. And spare us the recitation of the noble truths of "journalism".

  137. Pat
    December 4, 2018 at 2:48 pm

    NPR and WSJ aren't biased? Oh, FFS. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

  138. Ian
    November 28, 2018 at 4:58 pm

    This is very important. We human beings are very easily swayed by information, propaganda and rhetoric. And with so much around it is important for us individually to become more expert at picking out the truth. As an Englishman I would say that the BBC thinks it is impartial and its charter requires it to be. But by inclusion and omission it has a bias, for instance over our EU referendum battles. Anyone who has access to the BBC news at 6pm and Channel 4 at 7pm (UK times) can amuse themselves by noting the differences.
    The innocent recipient of an item can tell a lot just by the language. For instance, sticking with the EU, if I read, “The EU claims to be democratic but some say that the power of the European Commission is so great that there is little democracy in reality. Others deny this and say that if people were better informed, they would realise that the Commission just try to ensure that EU regulations are followed.” This shows that the arguments are being presented and the reader can judge.
    But if I read, “I want my sovereignty back. I don’t want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats with their snouts in the gravy train that is Brussels” I immediately know that I am reading someone who is trying to get in as many anti-EU words as possible. Exchanging insults can be stimulating, and sometimes humorous but never useful.
    I also think Aljazeera is good. They have done some good items about the shortcomings in the USA legal system. Sometimes reading what others think of us is good. I use Wikipedia a lot. If they were perceived to have a bias they would cease to be of value.
    But for getting unbiased news my favourite is Reuters. They supply other news outlets of varying biases so must be neutral themselves.

    • Jay
      February 5, 2019 at 8:14 am

      Where are you pulling those words from? Did someone from the BBC say those words on air?

    • Pablit0
      February 6, 2019 at 7:22 pm

      To long

    • Pablit0
      February 6, 2019 at 7:25 pm

      Yeah rite!

  139. Bear
    November 26, 2018 at 3:06 pm

    NPR!? Al Jazeera!!? Unbiased!!!?? They dont get much more biased than these two. Most of your "mentions" have proven themselve biased and unreliable for decades. The only news service you mentioned that can be considered somewhat unbiased is BBC. But thank you for giving me warning not to believe anything you write.

    • Ryan Dube
      November 26, 2018 at 3:38 pm

      If you read the article you would have seen the ones listed in that section are noted as:

      " They were not included in the list above because sometimes these sites occasionally let their author’s biases get published."

      This is why they weren't in the main list.

  140. VaWhiteTailHunter76VPI
    November 12, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    Your own bias was quite evident in that you couldn't resist using the term "bastion of Conservative news reporting" twice during your spiel. Not once did you use negative connotations when referring to fake news purveyors like CNN and MSLSD. How much are you getting paid by Soros ??

    • MUD
      November 17, 2018 at 11:18 pm

      Oh BBC fully admits its liberal perspective in journalism. Very easy to find this via a search

    • LW
      December 10, 2018 at 1:41 am

      Yeah why listen people's choices in unbiased news when they themselves are biased?

  141. Jim Love
    November 8, 2018 at 8:45 am

    You state within the BBC item of your article, "It may seem ironic that US news organizations appear far more censored and filled with pro-government propaganda than British news organizations.", being a UK resident the real irony is that the same holds true for the BBC.

    In the UK the use of "D notices" by the UK government under national security are used to suppress news items in the media. We too have to use foreign news agencies to find out more about what is really happening in our own country.

    • Barney
      November 13, 2018 at 7:43 am

      "We too have to use foreign news agencies to find out more about what is really happening"

      Jim, please do us all a service and tell us which foreign sites you find to be the most unbiased.


  142. Digit
    November 7, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    You got to be kidding right?
    You've listed the TOP biased sites possible.
    This throws doubt on absolutely anything else you put out...

  143. Blue
    November 7, 2018 at 2:37 pm

    All sites listed are biased. total horse manure from MUO.

  144. Martin
    November 7, 2018 at 12:42 pm


    The idea that the BBC is unbiased is laughable.

  145. N. T
    November 7, 2018 at 11:28 am

    Thank you for writing this article. Even if you you didn't get the list 100% correct, which I doubt is possible (because of extent the media is manipulated) this article is still very useful because one can get further information on this from the many readers' comments below.
    The media is a very important and powerful aspect of our society, we should constantly be having discussions like this to determine that what we are reading is true.
    Thanks again Ryan and the readers who have provided more insights.

  146. TechTragic
    November 7, 2018 at 9:45 am

    First, to be clear, love MUO site in general for various techie how to's, explainers and comparisons.

    That said, seems you've (unwittingly?) opened a massive can of worms regarding "uncensored" websites, especially as many comments have conflated "uncensored" & "unbiased". (They're not actually quite the same thing...)

    In terms of rating the bias of various news sources, "Media Bias Chart" at is worth a look for a big picture view & is also interesting for an organisation by organisation look. (Note for North American readers: depending on context, "ABC News" may well refer to ABC News Australia.)

    Hope above is useful &/or interesting!


    • SeekingToLearn
      December 3, 2018 at 12:12 pm

      Thanks for your unemotional and constructive response, where you share something useful to explore.

  147. Derek Kelsey
    November 7, 2018 at 7:22 am

    BBC...UNBIASED. you need a quick refresher, in UK BBC is now known as Tory Party Propaganda Outlet

  148. MerryMarjie
    November 6, 2018 at 11:26 pm

    If all of these sites seem left-leaning to you, please note that it may be YOU who are leaning too far right!

    • Ryan Dube
      November 7, 2018 at 8:16 pm

      What I find interesting is people from both the left and the right disagree with the list which essentially confirms it's about as Centrist a list as you can get!

      • Barney
        November 13, 2018 at 9:04 am

        Correct Ryan, it's a pretty decent list based on my seeking out credible and informative outlets over a number of decades. Well done.

      • Darin Davis
        November 14, 2018 at 6:11 pm

        I would agree... However, I would have moved NPR and Al Jazeera into the list with the appropriate mention that some of their opinion pieces are of course biased. Most of the people on the fringes are not even going to get you are talking about the facts, not opinion. Especially people on the right that have been herded for years by talking heads on their primary news channel... effectively they are exposed to so much more bias because they have fewer options available to them if they wish to stay in their comfort zones and not necessarily dig for the truth.

        The "Centrist" seems to be an endangered animal in todays world.

  149. Duncan Black
    November 6, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    Sorry, Ryan...the WSJ and CSpan are about the only sources where you can find unbiased news...forget Reuters and AP, most of their stories sound like editorials. I am a J-School grad and am appalled at what has happened to newspapers and other, you have to know which party is financing which outlets before you even consider giving them any cred.

  150. PaulJW
    November 6, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    BBC is quite openly pro-UK government, which is heavily right wing. The UK is well known as lacking balance in its media.

  151. DavyR
    November 6, 2018 at 7:02 pm

    One place I often refer to that works to give both sides is the "Real Clear" group; RealClear Politics, Science, Religion, etc. More commentary but still tries to work both sides., and check the sections

  152. James Hurs
    November 6, 2018 at 5:26 pm

    Is it April Fools day? Someone must have got to you and paid paid you to say these sites are unbiased. I can give many examples from every one you have listed.

    • Mark
      November 6, 2018 at 7:30 pm

      I agree 100%. Also, note no mention of contrasting liberal sites like CNN, only Fox news.

  153. Matthew Graff
    November 6, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    I thought this was an article from The Onion. NPR, BBC, please. As biased as it gets. You should check out the Canadian Free Press, they at least seem to be honest about themselves.

  154. Stefán
    November 6, 2018 at 4:19 pm

    Although Reuters and MP have their facts straight, It's easy to read their opinion in between the lines, and what they do and don't report. But overall, I agree with you on those.

    But BBC on the otherhand, has these multicultural mouthfeeding pieces to the most ridiculous degree. I'm not even nationalistic, but seriously, comon...
    OK, We get it BBC. You like gay Muslims, chill out! Many more products from BBC that I have seen over the years have this "we're just explaining it to you, no narrative behind this" tone as vox does, and sometimes it is true, but the fact that they blend that with e.g. "gender pay gap is due to sexist men laughing and smoking cigars" pieces, certainly does discredit them.

  155. sheldon
    November 6, 2018 at 5:29 am


  156. sheldon
    November 6, 2018 at 5:28 am

    Is this a joke or parody? What a crock of dung!

  157. Deave
    November 4, 2018 at 5:03 am

    I agree with most of these examples, except Google News. Like Yahoo and MSN, Google's merely a search filter. Although it might not be overtly biased left or right, it pulls its news from sources that are overtly biased and adjusts the content you receive based off this information. Moreover, its just a poor news aggregator at that.

    • RW
      November 8, 2018 at 6:41 am

      Sorry, but Goggle and its sister divisions in the Alphabet Company, particularly YouTube, are notorious for filtering Conservative content out of search results and silencing Conservative vloggers.

      • Steven Fox
        December 5, 2018 at 2:11 pm

        Sorry. I LOVED Google with all my heart, but no longer impartial. Also Fox was not kind to Trump during the election. I watched closely, being conservative. They just realized they could get more money going forward, I guess. I only watch Tucker. No one is impartial, and unless they say what side they are on: reader beware.

  158. JB
    November 3, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    Dube is bullchit.
    He removed my post that said Google News was akin to "anti-Trump" and "anti-White". Is that what anyone who comments on "unbiased news" and "free speech" and "censorship" would do? Obviously not.
    And his opinions on "unbiased" news sources is fing ridiculous.

    • Ryan Dube
      November 3, 2018 at 2:28 pm

      I didn't remove anything. I don't believe in censorship. I can ask around to see if anyone did but I suspect you just triggered the automated spam filter and the post is just held up waiting for review.

      • JB
        November 3, 2018 at 4:35 pm

        Up until a day ago, every time I clicked on that article I would get sent to the main MUO page. Why?
        "Held up for review"? That was about 1 1/2 months ago. Maybe some liberal staffer just decided to pocket my post for a while???
        And Google News is unbiased? What planet are you from? That site is FILLED with a constant stream of anti-Trump news. Constant.

  159. dragonmouth
    November 2, 2018 at 9:47 pm

    "What Is Unbiased News?"
    "Unbiased" news is any news story that supports YOUR point of view. Any interpretations of the news events you do not agree is automatically labelled as slanted and/or biased.

    "Every journalist is aware of the nine principles of journalism."
    Big, Fat, Hairy Deal! Every Christian and Jew is AWARE of the Ten Commandments and yet how many break them or disregard them? Every Muslim is AWARE of the Quran and yet we have Islamic terrorists. We are all AWARE of laws, rules and regulations, and yet we break them on a daily basis. Just because rules and regulations exist, does not mean they will be followed. When was the last time you exceeded the speed limit, spat on the sidewalk or dropped a cigarette butt on the ground?

    Every news source, including the ones mentioned in the article and those offered by posters (such as Miguel) as "really" unbiased, are all slanted one way or another. That is because every human being on the planet has biases learned, formed and acquired as (s)he go through life. Journalists and reporters are no different. They have learned their biases from their parents, peers, teachers, employers.

    If YOU think YOU are unbiased, then you are lying to yourself and to those you come in contact with. It is hard and unpleasant to admit to yourself that you are no better than those you've been ridiculing for being biased. If you are convinced that you are unbiased then you are like the alcoholic or drug addict that is convinced he has no problem.

    This is not the first article about biased and/or slanted news and I'm sure it is not the last one by far. Just ask yourself one question. Who died and appointed the individuals that write these articles as arbiters of what is biased/slanted and what is not? Are they without the sin of bias?

  160. RussiansAreComingReeeeee
    November 2, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    BBC.... lol.. Frankly, I find it genuinely scary that anyone could consider all mentioned here unbiased. This is why democracy is so stupid - the vast majority are hopelessly gullible and naive. The internet has saved some of these souls but there's an ever increasing gap between the ignorant and the woke. At some point these two opposing groups will go to war.
    To rule in a democracy all you have to do is gain control of the bulk of media, then you can incite, inflame and direct the passions of the populace to your cause. Has any population anywhere ever demanded war? No!, they are ALWAYS cheerlead by the media with atrocity lies and scary scenarios.

    • bluediamond
      December 8, 2018 at 3:53 am

      whoa, theres some harsh truth laid out right there

  161. TD Maxon
    November 2, 2018 at 3:15 pm

    I respect the effort to distinguish biased and unbiased reporting, and I applaud that you called out NPR and recognized the efforts of WSJ. But like many here, I wouldn't agree with this list 100%. Everyone has outlets they trust and those they don't, I suppose. But BBC appears to be crazy left-leaning when it comes to US and European news. The same is true of Reuters and AP, although they do seem to be improving since their their nakedly anti-Bush, pro-Obama, and pro-Hillary years.

  162. TD Maxon
    November 2, 2018 at 3:14 pm

    I respect the effort to distinguish biased and unbiased reporting, and I applaud that you called out NPR and recognized the efforts of WSJ. But like many here, I wouldn't agree with this list 100%. Everyone has outlets they trust and those they don't, I suppose. But BBC appears to be crazy left-leaning when it comes to US and European news. Reuters and AP seem the same, although they seem to be improving since their their nakedly anti-Bush, pro-Obama, and pro-Hillary years.

  163. Mrs S Turner
    October 17, 2018 at 8:00 am

    The BBC. You must be joking! I have had it removed from my TV. I am charged a load of money for the privilege of watching lies. If I question the BBC I am labelled far right - I am an old lady with two dogs and a quiet life.

  164. The Magical Kingdom
    October 10, 2018 at 11:00 pm

    While truthfully speaking there is no such thing as true neutrality in reporting, I find this list to be more accurately titled "Top 5 Corporate-Approved News Sites." Seriously, no mention of The Huffington Post or SNOPES?

    • Mary Bales
      October 10, 2018 at 11:40 pm

      Snopes is a left leaning source.
      Fact checker is a better source.

      • Ryan Dube
        October 11, 2018 at 7:11 pm

        Huffington Post used to be better but has been leaning too far to the left lately as well.

        • TD Maxon
          November 2, 2018 at 2:56 pm

          I would say HuffPo is far more than just left *leaning*. It fell, as did so many others, largely because if its over-eagerness to defend Obama by attacking his critics.

    • Linda
      October 18, 2018 at 4:09 pm

      I've recently come to the conclusion that snopes leans left, which is unfortunate b/c they were my go to for YEARS! I'm very disappointed in that.

  165. richie
    September 27, 2018 at 7:01 pm

    I find this article and news organizations to be totally false. Reuters and api are ultimately owned by the Rothshit family of britan and they control all the major news outlets. by the time the public has gotten the news from reuters and api it has been re-engineered. so the answer is no there is no honest and trustworthy news media to resource. not these at least .

  166. Jekku
    September 13, 2018 at 12:33 am

    This is a JOKE, right? Because NONE of these are unbiased! They are ALL Left-leaning shills of the highest order. Wow, YOU must be very biased yourself to think that any of these are "unbiased." What a laugh! Oh, my sides... dude, you gotta get outside the box more often....start with the Corbett Report!

    • Ryan Dube
      September 13, 2018 at 1:15 am

      Jekku - if you check out my Twitter feed (@rdube), you'll see that I'm neither left-leaning or right-leaning. This usually leads to left-leaners to call me right-wing, and a right-leaner to call me left-wing. However, I can assure you that this list was generated by examining the general population of articles at these publications and scouring them for extreme opinions to the left or right. Those that had the least extreme bias ended up in the list.

      • RW
        November 8, 2018 at 7:14 am

        A lack of extreme bias is a poor criterion. Calling moderate bias "unbiased" is either dumb or dishonest. Even a subtle bias, if consistent, can be more dangerous than overt bias because that makes it more deceptive. The only way to get past bias in the current environment is by balancing Left and Right sources.

        By the way, all of your "unbiased" organizations lean left. Some are more subtle than others, but the bias is there, and some, such as NPR, are pretty extreme. (Do you remember when they fired Juan Williams, a Black Liberal, for not being far enough to the Left? I didn't think so.) But if you drop the Fox News commentary programs, their straight news programs are probably closer to "unbiased" than most of the sources on your list.

        The fact that you are not sensitive to the above tells me that you lean pretty far to the left and don't know it.

  167. James Kennedy
    September 3, 2018 at 7:58 pm

    I'm afraid I don't agree with the assessment of the BBC. As UK citizen I can attest that the BBC is well know by all sides in the UK for it's biased left wing tendencies and reporting. It has been know for decades that it was thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by the left since the late 1970's and early 1980's. Almost every general election in the UK there's at least one debate on whether the BBC should be defunded by the British taxpayer, As It is so openly and obviously biased that it should be funded by the political party that it promotes rather than the British taxpayer.
    The BBC is one of the last places I'd go for news. So I think you really need to review your position. I'm afraid I and many UK citizens have no trust at all in what passes for journalism in the UK. Hence we try to look elsewhere for factual unbiased news.

  168. Paul Gidon
    August 28, 2018 at 4:05 am

    Google and BBC!?.... unbiased!?.....ya right! That's a good one!

  169. Paul Gidon
    August 28, 2018 at 4:02 am

    Google and BBC!?..... unbiased!?....ya right! That's a good one!

  170. David T.
    August 18, 2018 at 10:24 pm

    The BBC NEWS might seem to be unbiased to Americans.
    But many of the British public have got to watch TV news or
    To see what's really going on when it comes to politics ect.
    One example was when the Scottish public needed to know the REAL truth about how many Scottish civilians were marching for independence every September. But no british news channels would air the March to Edinburgh each September.
    But Russia Today let Scotland see the March.
    & if the Scottish public really wanted to see the thousands of YES supporters
    They would have to watch it on YouTube.

  171. Lance
    August 11, 2018 at 3:37 pm

    This list is about as good as it gets, but I was really surprised about your comment on NPR. I have been listening to NPR for more than twenty years, and it has always had a left leaning bias. NPR should be praised for in depth reporting and reporting on stories that no other major U.S. news source reports on, but one must sort through their biased terminology. Examples like, "undocumented workers and migrants" or "military style assault weapon" instead of illegal aliens or rifle, slant their reporting. Although they may report the facts, they have a bias against big business, Southern whites, gun owners, Confederate memorials, fraternities, and basically just anyone that isn't a left leaning urbanite. If you look at their staff biographies, you will see a lack of true diversity, beyond gender and skin color. Their staff is not represented by main stream America. My feeling is NPR may not even be aware of their bias.

    • True American
      October 11, 2018 at 10:28 pm

      Well reading your comments, one can tell you are a white supremacist, how so? Your parents parents must have been illegal aliens who loved rifles, right? You know as do all early European illegal aliens who because of the distance, couldn't swim across and the Real Americans didn't have military organizations such as ICE, who are fitted with the most drastic killing machines and they also were not racist people like ICE who take orders directly from an equally racist leader, I'm factual so far, right? Did those illegal aliens honor the real Americans with statues, name cities, streets after them, NO! Instead, the illegal aliens massacred and took over their lands, not like the current IA as you refer to them, they're not taking over land, not massacring anyone! I can go on with so much more of the atrocities your illegal alien ancestors committed, but you know I am factual in my post! I know you join me in demanding statues and streets named after the REAL AMERICANS, THE NATIVE AMERICANS!

  172. Enil Noliam
    July 21, 2018 at 7:00 am

    " I would have placed NPR in the primary list of unbiased news sources, till the U.S. election year. "


    The correct word is 'til. It's a contraction of until.


    • James Bruce
      August 27, 2018 at 1:50 pm

      Actually, Ryan's usage was correct, and yours is wrong. Common misconception. #EnglishIsReallyHardEvenForPeopleWhoUseEnglishIsHardHashtag

      • John Walker
        October 10, 2018 at 6:25 am

        Thank you for that reply James. I haven’t smiled this happily in a while.

        • Brian
          October 30, 2018 at 7:04 pm

          Being a grammar Nazi doesn’t make you a better person. Everyone with some intelligence knows what Enil meant by using the word “till.” Aint was not a word when I was child growing up child, but everyone knows what it means. Its just considered to be not proper or spoken by people of a lower class. So, by hatting on people who use the world “till” I guess you just showing everyone that you feel you are classier then Enell.

        • John Walker
          October 30, 2018 at 7:32 pm

          Brian, man. What are you talking about? Enil was the one being the grammar dick, incorrectly calling out the author's usage of "till".

          What made me smile was not the correction from James of Enil's incorrect correction. But the tag "#EnglishIsReallyHardEvenForPeopleWhoUseEnglishIsHardHashtag".
          I thought that was funny because if you're going to be a grammar dick and call someone out over something stupid, agree with your point here, you should at least be right about it.

          I agree and respect everything you said up until the "classier" part. Laughing at someone who was a dick for no reason to start with, and who also failed at being a dick, does not make me superior/classier then said person. It makes me human.

        • VaWhiteTailHunter76VPI
          November 12, 2018 at 2:33 pm

          Brian............"hatting" on people. Did you mean "hating"? If you're going to put your two cents in, it's wise not to make mistakes and look like a fool.

      • Louise
        February 9, 2020 at 11:21 pm

        I was surprised by that rule a few weeks ago.

  173. Miguel
    July 20, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    For five truly independent news and information sources, check out:

    theantimedia dot org
    wikileaks dot org
    blacklistednews dot com
    thesleuthjournal dot com
    mintpressnews dot com

    • Louise
      February 9, 2020 at 11:25 pm

      I'm gullible. Are these real?

  174. Austin
    July 20, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    UBNM is another aggregator to check out, good mix of sources IMO

    • Rex Burkheimer
      November 6, 2018 at 10:23 pm

      UBNM looked good until I saw Snopes listed under Facthecks

  175. Miguel
    July 19, 2018 at 9:15 pm

    Hilarious. Five of the worst offenders. All Establishmentarian "news" and opinion pushers.

    • Academia Theo
      August 24, 2018 at 5:31 am

      Miguel, I agree with you 100%. Can you recommend anything to me. Thanks

      • John Walker
        October 10, 2018 at 7:27 am

        I have a recommendation for you but it's not unbiased. For me, that's ok. Only in specific situations though.
        While on a personal two-year journey to become better informed politically
        I've come to learn that a bias news source isn't a problem. What is a problem is a news source outright
        lying or more commonly being purposefully misleading. The misleading news is actually worse for me.
        Because the news source can hide behind the fact that technically they weren't lying.
        But the outcome to the news consumer is the same as being lied to because they now know/believe false things.
        I really only care about the veracity/integrity of the host or journalist and my ability to not have to
        worry about what I'm listening to or reading being disingenuous. I work long hours at a startup and I don't have
        the time or energy to fact check my news sources repeatedly. So it's extra crucial to find a 100% trustworthy news source.

        So after all of that intro, my recommendation is The Young Turks show. I stumbled upon it about three weeks
        ago and it felt like a breath of fresh air. They openly admit they have a progressive bias and deplore the establishment.
        I had never heard of a "progressive" but I did already dislike the establishment. Which is why I couldn't stomach
        the mainstream media on either side.

        When researching them to see if they could be trusted to do news with a bias I found a ton of trash talk and insults
        towards their views, and I mean a ton, but I could not find anyone showing them as liars or as disingenuous journalists.
        And to contrast that, they have countless clips showing Fox, CNN, etc. hosts repeatedly both lying and purposefully
        misleading. The Young Turks also explain Fox, CNN's motivations when they're doing their BS.
        Which I found fascinating. Because both sides will have honest parts of their shows. So by understanding the
        motivations when they do lie/mislead you can predict it just by knowing a little bit about the issue during whatever segment.

        Ok, I'm finally done. Pretty much the most words I've ever written to the internet lol.
        I hope that helps some, sorry if it doesn't. Good luck in wading through our sad media!

    • Alex Nathan
      August 24, 2018 at 5:33 am

      I agree with you 100%

  176. wilson Smith
    July 19, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    The BBC & NPR work hand in hand to advance the Gay agenda, Trans-sexual Agenda and Female Feminists agenda to the point of be very biased news! wake up world The One world Government agenda is daily brainwashing you! Never trust the BBC or its sister station NPR!

    • David T.
      August 18, 2018 at 10:26 pm

      The BBC NEWS might seem to be unbiased to Americans.
      But many of the British public have got to watch TV news or
      To see what's really going on when it comes to politics ect.
      One example was when the Scottish public needed to know the REAL truth about how many Scottish civilians were marching for independence every September. But no british news channels would air the March to Edinburgh each September.
      But Russia Today let Scotland see the March.
      & if the Scottish public really wanted to see the thousands of YES supporters
      They would have to watch it on YouTube.

  177. Lauren Jessop
    July 17, 2018 at 3:33 pm

    Thank you for this! The top list may not be perfect, but they are consistently good. Once we know what to look for, it's easy to pick out the bias also. It is amazing to me that people let their own biases effect their acceptance or rejection of facts. I also find it totally disheartening that we have to work so hard to obtain facts without them being twisted or left out to make the story seem different.
    Thank you!

  178. John Stabelle
    July 10, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    What a crock of crap. EVERY one of those five 'most trusted' sources are definitely full of fake propoganda.
    1. The AP. It was caught red handed several times just last year, first by photoshopping a photo of an israeli jet dropping flares to make it appear they were firing missiles. Then on 3 separate occassions showed pictures of the SAME palestinian woman and her destroyed home from three different angles, all of the exact same event.

    2.The Wall street Journal? You gotta be kidding. The same wall street journal that takes a positive view of every single left wing issue around? The same journal that endorsed Hillary Clinton? LOL

    3.Google News?? LOL My god dude, google censors EVERYTHING that is not straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook. You expect their news to be unbiased when everything else is run by radical far left kooks? Get real.

    4.BBC LOL My god, the BBC, the epitomy of state run media. The friggin media is run by the state and you think it is unbiased? How come then, they push against brexit and slam Israel at every chance and completely ignore all of the terror attacks by those poor palestinians?

    5. Reuters One of the largest monopolies on propoganda in this nation.

    your first three honorable mentions, al jazeera, CSpan and NPR continue to prove you have no clue what bias means. Sorry you say one thing then list some of the largest monopolies and corporations that not only carry completly biased and partisan stories but are not much more than propoganda mills. They have lost credibility with the American public because they have in recent years gone far beyond reporting biased news, but actually publishing b/s articles that are in fact completely made up and all to fit an agenda.

    • Trumpsac Unt
      July 21, 2018 at 7:11 am

      You might want to loosen the strap on your tin-foil hat, lol.

      • Ace McGrannahan
        September 18, 2018 at 9:23 pm

        Those who have not a viable counter argument resort to insults.. says Yoda.

      • Ace McGrannahan
        September 18, 2018 at 9:36 pm

        I would lay money on it that Ryan Dube is one of those far-left wingers that misrepresents himself as a politically neutral commentator in order to propagate his favored political ideology in a more beguiling/persuasive mannner.

    • Miles Quickster
      August 24, 2018 at 9:11 am

      Wow, and here I was thinking these would be the good guys. Tsk

  179. Mychael
    July 2, 2018 at 2:17 am

    Thank you for this article.

  180. Mark Villeneuve
    June 23, 2018 at 5:57 pm

    During the first Iraq war, while all the embedded journalists were sticking around camp for the official briefings, one organization's journalists were noticeably absent... because they had infiltrated behind the lines to gather their info first hand. This is consistent practice for this news service, which does at times have its particular bias, but provides a healthy counterpoint to the predominant Anglo-Saxonmedia sources. Guessed it yet? Agence France Presse. The mission of the AFP "... is defined by its statutes: to report events, free of « all influences or considerations likely to impair the exactitude » of its news and « under no circumstances to pass under the legal or actual control of an ideological, political or economic group."

  181. Aswin
    June 21, 2018 at 2:26 am

    Google news is more of an aggregator, BBC does sometimes have bias, AlJazeera can sometimes be quite balanced but other times really biased (avoid it for certain topics), CS monitor looks pretty good, include PBS as well even though it is a bit left leaning its quite unbiased and I think you have not tried Xinhua. Yes its not independent but it is very factual (no joke), I actually felt it quite unbiased for a lot of things. But perhaps it doesn't of course meet the requirements of "What Bias Really Means". What about ProPublica, DW and AFP... how are those?

  182. Sevano
    June 8, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    LOL, NPR, Al Jezeera, and Google News made the list? It shows that you can't even find a website that is not biasd in providing unbiased news websites. NPR is as far left as you can get except for the Huffington Post. Google selects news according to it's agenda which is far from neutral. Al Jeezera, well, is Al Jeezera. Use it freely, haha. I'll stay with the Wall Street Journal and C-Span. For a world view, I'll go with BBC, but it has it's favorites/biases too. Gone are the days where you could get news without propaganda and reading someone else's agenda and views carefully woven into the narrative.

  183. Jonathon Wright
    June 7, 2018 at 1:22 am

    This article should be retitled "The TOP FIVE fake news sites in the world"!!!

  184. anonymous2424
    June 2, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    the only way to get uncensored information is to look very, very hard for it yourself...
    information is constantly oppressed and little sprouts of raw information will appear
    once in a while and you need to archive it before it is removed.

  185. Anand
    May 16, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Google ? BBC ? Reuters ? AP ?
    Guys what are you smoking please ?

  186. Bryan
    May 16, 2018 at 5:43 am

    BBC? That has to be a joke right?

    • Ian
      July 23, 2018 at 2:45 pm

      I came here to try to find an unbiased alternative to the BBC. It seems that I have to keep on looking

  187. Daniel Henley
    May 14, 2018 at 7:41 pm

    You can't be serious!!

  188. pogo
    April 29, 2018 at 7:15 pm

    Every single news source mentioned in this blog is exactly the OPPOSITE that this article conveys. Every single listing is in actuality, at the top of the list for reporting nothing but Western mainstream propaganda-like a CIA script.

  189. dada
    April 20, 2018 at 7:40 pm

    you lost me at "wall st journal"

    • pogo
      April 29, 2018 at 7:19 pm

      This article is a perfect example of propaganda and lies,- 100%!!!

  190. kevin Fitmaurice-Brown
    April 19, 2018 at 5:17 pm

    Interesting biased ill considered rubbish and written with terrible grammar.

  191. As
    April 10, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    Where’s The Guardian?
    This article cannot be trusted

    • marius
      April 12, 2018 at 12:17 am

      I agree. there are better other unbiased news sites not mentioned . This article is has a Western biased foveal view.

  192. Jason Carroll
    April 5, 2018 at 7:09 am

    The BBC fails to negatively report on the current government & is not impartial. Their political editor: Laura Kiessenberg is completely biased against the Labour Party.

  193. weeblewobble
    March 30, 2018 at 2:30 am

    BBC? haha fake news 101.... half the ones you named are the main ones reporting false news

  194. Andrew Charnley
    March 26, 2018 at 3:16 pm

    I will merely provide one observation on the BBC rather than on all of the choices shown here as the advice that these are reliable 'truthful' news entities, is very difficult to agree with. As a thoroughly British person (in the sense of upbringing, schooling and career), I would have been surprised that if anyone had told me fifteen years ago I would have more faith in a global news organisation like RT instead of the BBC, I would have found their suggestion unreasonable, if not absurd. The BBC is paid for by the people but is undoubtedly owned by the government! The government applies an extraordinary number of 'stop notices' to news stories, where it does not suit them. It is a fairly blunt propaganda machine but the expression, 'The people cannot see the wood for the trees', does apply to much of the Western world.
    My father was a Polish war fighter pilot, a farmer, and an engineer (Married my English mother) and he taught me that if I wanted to understand war and politics that I needed to read the opinions observed and written, not the winners, but by all others, as best as I could.
    He also advised me when I was fifteen (1963), that the UK would become more of a police state, which it has to some large degree; that pensions would collapse because they were not sustainable in decades to come; that similarly, the social security net would falter and then fail, as might the NHS (Largely due to political manipulation than just economic arguments).
    He put this down to the greed of those in power rather than the system failing. But what I remember more than anything else of what he said to me (I am writing this on the day the EU and USA expelled a wide number of Russian diplomats on the 26 March 2018), 'that to poke the Russian Bear in any form would likely bring a serious consequence upon those who did'.
    I now fear for everyone but have little care for the world's so called politicians who are largely carpet baggers...

  195. Astounded
    March 26, 2018 at 7:03 am

    Are you seriously associating the BBC with "integrity"? Despite it, among many others, it almost completely ignoring the mass rape & sex slavery of white British girls, by Asian Muslim gangs, because of 'racial sensitivities'? And then Al Jazeera?? You're either as full of it as they are. Or you're completely ignorant about the world around you. You've just listed two of the most left-leaning outfits on the planet. Incredible.

  196. James Hammett
    March 24, 2018 at 8:39 am

    Utter rubbish. All of the sources listed are biased and promote propaganda

    • Astounded
      March 26, 2018 at 7:04 am

      Indeed. Totally left-leaning propaganda machines. Especially the BBC & Al Jazeera. Incredible!

  197. Craig Taylor
    March 21, 2018 at 11:16 am

    BBC and unbiased are two words that I never thought I would see together.

  198. Zero Chaos
    March 15, 2018 at 12:46 am

    google? al-jazeera? legitimate, honest, high-integrity news sources? hardly. the writer gives their extreme bias away. Yes, give a couple of decent sources to legitimize the article then slip in the lies.

  199. Red Pilled
    March 8, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    This list is brought to you by a propagandist who thinks everyone is stupid. In his/her/it/they's spare time they enjoy pretending to be an ornate building, playing furry with ricardo and bashing our president.

    • Red Pilled
      March 8, 2018 at 9:01 pm

      I have a list but this cuck won't let me post it.

    • Ryan Dube
      March 8, 2018 at 10:07 pm

      Well for starters I'm a he, which you appeared to figure out given your second troll comment. Second, I don't know if any Ricardo's, but if you say so.

      Third, do people really pretend they're ornate buildings? Why?

      And last but not least, I find people who bash any current standing president to be simple-minded and just part of the flow of sheep.

      Not really sure where your comments are coming from but I can assure you I'm just a regular guy writing a regular article. No shadowy illuminati pulling any ropes. Feel free to disagree with the choices but I'd advise against running yourself off the intellectual cliff with exotic conspiracy theories like this.

      • Andrew Charnley
        March 26, 2018 at 3:24 pm

        I do agree with the sentiment you have shown in this commentary Ryan but I have responded as few minutes ago, and politely, but I too am surprised at your stance. It is as if you missed some aspects and your reasoning is therefore false. I do not wish any negative on to you as if we do not behave intellectually and agitate our differences with polite but honest descriptions we will all go down the same rabbit hole to our oblivion ending. Ware starts with words that are cross and in the end the wars have to end with diplomatic exchanges. So, as Winston Churchill was famous for saying, 'More jaw-jaw, less war-war'...I do not believe he was a sincere or honest man but his saying is worthy of repeating.

      • Travis Swanson
        April 4, 2018 at 8:07 am

        I will say, there is a muttle in truth. Truth is never easy to find, even if you thought you found a piece of it. Some truths are simple. Other truths are extremely complicated. And some truths are dangerous, if not deadly.

        Truth is to see things as they really are.
        Nothing more.
        Nothing less.

        This is a long point, but an important one. So pay attention, keep up, and like a well told story, the facts and statements may begin to bring light on this subject. I hope at 12:38 in the morning, I do justice to truth, with human illustrated examples through the American English language.

        As a dominating species on this planet, we tend to forget quite a few things about our nature. Dominance is not always progress, healthy, or betterment of growth in areas of intellectual, scientific, and cultural, to name a few as possible, advancement to progress our species beyond our primal instincts.

        We humans are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees.

        That has not, and will not change, for the time being.

        Study chimpanzees, then study people. You will see little difference. Accept that we have a higher intellect, and advanced technologies that we have engineered to manipulate the known elements on this planet to our advantage, whatever the advantage is.

        But, we have a sense about detecting things that are not quite... right. We can sense bullshit at times, as long as there is no outside incentive that manipulates our “bullshit meter”.
        Once, man believed in many gods.
        Then few gods.
        Then one god.

        Over time, we learned there were not gods of the sea, wind, earth, sky, sun, etc.
        Until a hundred or so years ago, humans did not know we were on a planet with a cooling, ever-moving crust with turbulent weather.
        Religion was our first attempt to understand the world. Science has now shown us some truths that Bronze Age people could have never known.
        For instance, disease. Bronze Age people had no idea about the existence of microscopic organisms that make us sick, or die. Religion scoffed up the mystery to people repenting to sins. They knew it wasn’t, but had no better explanation.
        Surprise, now we do.
        Science is a process. Prove yourself wrong. Double blind studies, in certain sciences of course, are the testament to finding truth. It is the most humble, again if not biased, processes to understanding the world around us mankind has developed yet.
        And at this juncture, may ever develope. Yet people still believe in a god. There is more evidence to prove non-existence, than the existence of god. But, what people choose to see as truth can always be manipulated with language, culture, and environment. That is a truth in and of itself.

        Now, how many people do you think there are that truly don’t think that theism, deism, or organized religion has purpose to us any more, yet pretent to be a part of it because they think it makes them a better person, or because thier whole life is built around it.
        And those who dare to be honest about being non-theists, non-deists, etc. get shunned, ostracized, even beaten, and sometimes killed for thier honesty and truth?

        We will never know, but we know it happens. If you don’t, now you do.

        Simple truth. We are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees.

        Complicated truth. We are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees with higher intelligence, industrial knowledge and engineering, technological advancement, and know almost all the elements on earth and some ways to manipulate them to our advantage, while a vast majority of the world still believes in Bronze Age, if not older, religions, who would never know the knowledge we have now. And all religions claim to be the “right”. Humans like to be right, that is a truth.

        Yet, we still seek truth. By the way, conspiracy theories, are theories that have no truth behind them. Once there is a single piece of truth, it is no longer a conspiracy “theory”. It Is a Conspiracy. Fact. Truth. Reality.

        Just as in Science, a theory has no facts behind it, just projections of what is to be hopefully found and learned based off other facts we know to be true. Once there is a slight shred of fact or truth, it is no longer a theory, but does not make it the whole truth either. In science, you problem solve and you test yourself to be wrong. That way if it is impossible to prove yourself wrong, it must be true.


        For most, wether people choose to recognize fact, truth, or reality, or not, does not make it any less true. But some truths, facts, realities will be different upon event location, time, and experience. We cannot know the whole world, but being connected to everyone in the world who holds facts, truths, and reality as thier “way of life”( wich is the direct translation of religion from Latin by the way), are people you should connect with.

        For the most part, we can “smell bullshit”. Some people just choose to ignore it.

        Unfortunately, and fortunately, our entire societies choices have consequences. Benefiting, or damaging.
        Get use to “fake news”, bullshit, etc. just learn to decipher it. Investigate the source, double, triple, quadruple, etc. check it. And connect with people who are at the source of the reason for news being reported, and the truth is out there.

        Tradition. Who ever reads this, tradition is instilled, engrained in us all, in some way, or form. We are tribal organisms. Because we half a chromosome away from chimpanzees.

        People make mistakes. It has always, and will always happen. But preventing mistakes, problem solving, and using a scientific process with bring you as close to the truth, if not the whole truth, as any one person can strive to learn.

        Tell me a news source that can legitimately use the process to try to prove it’s stories wrong, and I will trust it more than any other source on earth. But, people will be people.

        I will wait for this news source, it’s name, and it’s past reports .

        • Brian
          October 30, 2018 at 8:06 pm

          Well written but many people could poke holes in your argument/statement very easily. Science is a tool. A really good tool but it has not solved all the mysteries of the universe. I personally don’t think it ever will. As you proposed maybe something else could replace science or the scientific method or double-blind studies, but it has yet to happen and as you mentioned may never. Science and double-blind studies can be manipulated by people just as news articles and facts are currently and have been done for centuries. Trust and truth are what we are all looking for and I would argue why most of us even read this article. It maybe that we are just noticing bias in reporting more or its happing a higher frequency then it has happened in the recent past. I would argue that science is becoming a religion to many people in the states and I can’t speak for the rest of the world as I haven’t lived there. Anything that is believed with blinding passion can be potentially dangerous and creates an environment where it’s easier to manipulate other humans.

      • Mychael m
        July 2, 2018 at 2:20 am

        This right here. Thank you.

  200. Red Pilled
    March 8, 2018 at 8:32 pm

    This list is bullshit. They are all Mockingbird "Media". Also known as Fake News sites. Don't fall for this bullshit.

  201. Yores Trooly
    March 6, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    what a waste of time. the owners of this site discredit themselves with such obvious bullsh1t

  202. Donald G Schofield
    March 4, 2018 at 5:57 pm

    If I had not read the headline and just read the article, I would think it was "5 worst newsites for being biased". The AP???? Google??? NPR??? Hahahahaha, Ryan, you think that the more "left" a site is, the more unbiased it is.

  203. Kelvin Pell
    February 26, 2018 at 11:53 pm

    The BBC? Unbiased?

    40 years ago the BBC was a beacon of truth and first rate journalism.

    Today, whilst it may, especially to American viewers, lack the outright partisanism of say a CNN or Fox, it is more or less the voice of political correctness, islam and rabid communism in the U.K

    It's blatant stance against it's own country and populace leading up to and post the Brexit vote was bordering on 'Pravda' style propaganda.

    It never misses an opportunity to ridicule and attack any Conservative elements in politics and British society; whilst pandering and glorifying socialists and communists, never criticising, always tacitly supporting.

    .....and pretending it is fair, objective and unbiased.

    Dr. Goebbels could not have created a better more subtle propaganda machine.

  204. Juanita Bonner AA, PharmD, RPh
    February 12, 2018 at 6:48 am

    Thanks for the info, though I have to disagree that NPR served only the DNC in the last election. I listened daily and heard from all sides and still do. NPR deserves to be higher on this list.

  205. JPF
    February 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm

    Associated Press - sometimes depending on the journalist. Wall Street Journal -yes. Google news listed as #3? You've got to be kidding! I just opened Google News to see what was being spoon fed as headline news. Anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump. Washington Post first, NY Times, and Huffington Post?!?! That's not even a real news organization - pure propaganda. This is an example of peppering in lies amidst the truth in attempt to validate. Don't listen to this author. By the way, this article was posted in the top 4 by a Google search, and the first 3 were all left media suggestions.

  206. Pam Mabile
    January 31, 2018 at 2:28 pm

    Are you kidding? Every one of these sources have been exposed for leftist bias
    not a single credible news source!!!!!!

  207. Pam Mabile
    January 31, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    NPR is definitely disappointing since the election year. Myself and a few friends no longer listen to it.

  208. ed
    January 30, 2018 at 9:09 am

    are you serious? getdafukouttahere, not a single credible news source, you wasted my time.

  209. Trigger Warning
    January 19, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    You are high if you think that the last 3 organizations you mentioned including the honorable mentioned organizations are not pushing hard to the left. This is a joke of a recommendation.

  210. Chris P. Bacon
    January 17, 2018 at 2:20 pm

    Are you kidding? Every one of these sources have been exposed for leftist bias!

  211. FlyingPotato
    January 17, 2018 at 7:02 am

    I quit reading this article as soon as I saw the BBC. Moved to Germany late 2016 and the only English channel I had for 3 months was BBC about an extremely biased news. If a unnamed infamous German leader from the 1930's and 1940's was running for US President they would have made him look like Gandhi compared to the opposition. I completely stopped watching TV for 2 months.

  212. drainswampincludingtrump
    January 7, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    Why is everyone worried about Trump censoring the news media? The news media not only censors but also make it up and change it as they please. We read and hear what they want us to read and hear. We need to stop that before we worry about anything else along these lines.

  213. whatajokethisis
    December 29, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    Can't even believe this piece. The WSJ is owned by Murdock and you call it unbiased? ---- The Wall Street Journal under Rupert Murdoch -
    No hope for humanity!
    Not only that, this page moderates everything, which is what China & Russia do, to see if they want you to see it or not. Otherwise, they would just have a swear word eliminator. Free speech is yelling fire in a crowded theater according to the GOP at least. Corporations as individuals without paying their fair share or suffering and consequences for their actions is just plain above the law. Speaking of above the law, this corrupt corporate bought congress.

  214. Jack
    December 29, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    Can't even believe this piece. The WSJ is owned by Murdock and you call it unbiased? ---- The Wall Street Journal under Rupert Murdoch -
    No hope for humanity!

  215. John
    December 16, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    You've just listed a bunch of corporately owned "news" sources, including one owned by Rupert Murdoch, a shameless propagandist who made his fortune with a gossip magazine.

    I should have known from the provocative title that this article would be absurd.

  216. Spanky
    December 12, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    LOL! This article was brought to you by the MSM.

  217. blackbird
    December 12, 2017 at 7:30 am

    Honestly for a real print newspaper it probably doesn't get better than WSJ. Both sides have complained about it but it has to be somewhat unbiased since it is targeting the business world. AP and Reteurs are decent most of the time.

    Al Jazeera is a state-run piece of garbage, so is BBC(left), NPR is fine until it gets to the political things and then it sides left (pro-multiculturalism, global warming, full abortion support etc. For these issues they don't even try to be balanced). Google is so far left it's not even funny. Hell one of the board members was one of the biggest democratic party doners.

  218. Chas
    December 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    This is a joke right? You just listed some of the most bias, agenda-based and left-controlled media outlets in the US as being free of censorship? hahahahahahaha!!!!! Good one!!!!

  219. CJ
    November 27, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    The BBC is horrendously biased. I realised this after moving to Wales and realised it again following its treatment of the newly proclaimed Republic of Catalonia.

    • Colette
      November 30, 2017 at 3:23 pm

      Absolutely. Especially during the 2016 US election. I had to stop watching.

  220. Judith
    November 25, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    I mean the fact that you have al-jazeera - a state funded, agenda-pushing, biased, fake news story making FACTORY, on here, shows how unbiased you are (not at all)

    • Colette
      November 30, 2017 at 3:25 pm

      Al Jazeera USA, was reporting very unbiased accurate news. Especially to those from the Middle East who understand the complexities. I suppose this is why they are off air.

  221. Lee
    November 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Ha ha ha ha The BBC? ha ha ha

    This has to be a joke. You are not local to the UK are you. The BBC was once a good source, but these days is just a mouth piece for the current Conservative Government. Refuse to allow the opposition to speak, publish slurs, Jimmy Savile? they employed and protected paedophiles for years.

    It is like saying Fox News is the go to for the US market these days...

    • Colette
      November 30, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      GOOGLE execs who met with Obama the week he took office, then scrubbed of negative info. It's common knowledge, why doesn't this author know? Same goes for Hillary Clinton...even if you strongly favor for a candidate, you 'may' still want to know the truth about their background,

    • Colette
      November 30, 2017 at 3:47 pm

      NPR. Did I see NPR? Come on.
      Why did you write this article friend?

      So far the only way I've been able to get BOTH sides and good explanations is on the Varney & Co tv show. No clips, the full press conference, or interview. Politics-Business-World Events...
      And I'm not a proponent of tv shows.

      I'd still like something else.

  222. tonk
    November 9, 2017 at 9:19 am

    the wosrt listing ever, get real stooge.

  223. tonk
    November 9, 2017 at 9:18 am

    The BBC, the wall street journal,....are you serious? getouttahere.

  224. Shirley
    November 9, 2017 at 1:25 am

    Boy, Aren't the Democrats EXCited (11-8-17) that they took Virginia and New Jersey in the elections today? I was on CBS, by accident, just now.... I mean - it's ALLLL over the news when other info in the past wasn't at all...They pick and choose the news headlines that will make them look good so they can blast Trump in some way or other..I'm just an ordinary citizen but I do NOT watch my local news stations anymore (NBC- ABC-CBS -) I hope one of these days that we can get an "independent LOCAL news station" to watch...I watch FOX news most of the time, but they aren't local...They tell it like it is!!! Sooooo much FAKE news floating around "out there" - Shirley

  225. Ask questions
    November 6, 2017 at 8:59 am

    Don't take this article as fact. Do your own research and compare different news sites. All of these news cites are extremely biased. Go check the parent companies of each of them.

  226. Lou Muscovitch
    November 4, 2017 at 11:32 am

    BBC You ARE way out on this GO LOOK Again But wear Your GLASSES love light

  227. Victor Steele
    November 3, 2017 at 11:06 am

    You. Are. On. Crack.

    • D. Trent
      November 19, 2017 at 1:24 am

      LOL!!! I agree!

    • Love4AllHumans
      November 22, 2017 at 4:04 am

      ROFLMAO Best Comment for the writer of this list... only explanation for this article.

  228. Buckster
    October 26, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    this is a joke right? Or is it just sponsored content?

  229. Mike
    October 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Well that was disappointing. Anyone who considers the BBC unbiased evidently doesn't know what they are talking about!

  230. ed
    October 1, 2017 at 5:53 am

    well, this article and writer struck out and their agenda is obvious.......... I have tried all of the sources quoted and found bias is rampant....

    I just want the news.......... unadulterated without bias, without disclaimers ............ "Just the facts"

  231. you are kidding me!
    September 29, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    The BBC try very hard to promote US news over all else, when in large, the UK have ZERO interest wtf happens in the US.
    A shooting happens in the US it's all over the BBC, when 22 people die in a bomb attack in India for example, you're lucky if the BBC even mention it!

    BBC has it's own agenda, it's bias beyond reason and should no longer be running in the UK nor should it have the luxury of receiving tax payers money

    • ed
      October 1, 2017 at 5:54 am

      me too

    • Lou Muscovitch
      November 4, 2017 at 11:34 am

      At last the truth

  232. Urkel jenkins
    September 27, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Laughed all the way through

  233. KubieJr
    September 27, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    Thank you so much for your list of reputable, unbiased news sites. I'm so sick of hearing bias from both sides. You just can't get away from it. At work, at home, on the radio, surely can't watch the nightly news anymore. I'm looking at all of your recommendations. Thank you.

    • JoeL
      October 17, 2017 at 4:40 pm

      So true Kubie, and very disappointing, all news is pretty much unwatchable at this point, very hard to maintain objectivity.

    • Niki Jay
      October 29, 2017 at 6:16 pm

      Hmm! I don't listen to the BBC news because they are one of the most biased sources I know. Makes your article look like complete Bollox tbh.

    • tonk
      November 9, 2017 at 9:21 am

      keep sleeping dude.

  234. Dan Caldwell
    September 18, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    I'm very disturbed by media bias. To me this means that the author of a news article, by his or her reporting, is trying to influence the beliefs of the reader. I find most American news sites to be heavily biased, as they pander to government or corporation interest rather than honest and truthful reporting. The very best filter is between ones ears, but it is essential to be a critical thinker and in my humble opinion most people are not.

  235. John Bimmerman
    September 12, 2017 at 11:50 am

    It's worth noting that the BBC does not get free reign over how it can report events. The selection of news feed, and what level of detail is included, can distort the narrative considerably. I'm looking for an unbiased source of information on UK news and am looking outside of the UK media.

  236. Tina Ridgway
    September 11, 2017 at 8:41 am

    I am always on the hunt for news sources who are dedicated to reporting the NEWS. I liked a few of your picks. BBC seems to lean pretty far left to me. But, maybe without my meaning to, the fact that I lean to the right, more than likely infuses that slant on how I receive the news. In fact, I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that is likely the story with most of us. We, as a species desire to hear a verification of what we already believe. And if the facts differ from what we believe to be real we dismiss it as propaganda. Someone once said, " it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled." Wiser words have seldom been spoken.
    I am willing to accept journalists aren't what they used to be. I will always consider 2016 as the year hackers became journalist and journalists became hacks. My biggest problem with the news is there is a lot of NOT reporting the news. News that is of great consequence and impacts our lives. Or sensationalizing things that aren't news and never were until some reporter decided to create bedlam by instilling fear and discontent. What happened to investigative journalists determined to get to the bottom of something? When did someone decide it was a news organizations job to sweep relevant news and happenings under the rug so a political figure won't' look bad. The "Russia Collusion" fiasco that has cost taxpayers 100s of thousands of dollars if not millions and that has been said of time and again to not have any evidence of has taken up hours and hours of news programming. It distracts people from the fact Russia is being accused of trying to influence the election by leaking e-mails that proved the DNC was indeed attempting to influence the election. GO FIGURE!
    I'm am perceptive enough of my own prejudices to admit I put a RIGHT spin on my interpretation of the news. But I am not putting a spin on the FACT that too much crucial news is not getting reported to the American people or it just gets skimmed over in favor of sensationalizing crap that doesn't really impact anyone's life and is based on a lie with a political agenda.

    • ron
      October 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm

      Thanks Tina, for a thoughtful response!

    • Charles
      November 29, 2017 at 3:56 am

      And what is your source for "proof that the dnc attempted to influence the election" ?
      That would have surely made the headlines, especially abroad, wouldn't you think?
      What is making headlines, all over the world, is that a president is APPEARING not to take investigations seriously, while you have Intelligence Services, the Senate, social media , etc. are all investigating. Maybe journalists should not report about investigations about some of his former bystanders that came to close to the fire? Because it's not "impacting anyone's life"..

      And then he takes the word of Putin, who doesn't even allow the existence of real (never mind investigative) journalism in his own country...Even if not in Trump's own interest, it would be wise not to insinuate, threat or fire, or obstruct any investigation into this. History will tell about this, neither side should jump to conclusions. But wether for or against in this, democracy and either side loses when public inquiry into this is being sniffed at by anyone who doesn't like it. Neither side will benefit from that, only Putin will, but rest assured, he already said it wasn't him. I'm sure you already read that on your facebook account.

      • Tina M Ridgway
        October 31, 2018 at 8:42 pm

        The evidence is in the emails that were leaked. Read them. I have.

      • Tina M Ridgway
        October 31, 2018 at 8:59 pm

        You need to ask yourself, why would these emails be leaked if there wasn't' something in them that exposes the sender or receiver of the emails as being shady or dishonest. ? Then read them, it's in there. I promise. Something that the so-called journalists of the above-mentioned "news" agencies have failed to report. Which makes my point.

      • Tina M Ridgway
        October 31, 2018 at 9:10 pm

        First of all put on your thinking cap, use a little deductive reasoning. I know it is probably a little rusty from not having used it in a while but do try. Begin by asking yourself if the emails that were leaked were not going to expose some wrongdoing by either the sender or the receiver of the email then why bother to leak them? Great question don't cha think? Then read them. Just google them and look a bit, you will find them. They expose a lot of things I am sure Hillary, Podesta and a few others in her camp would rather have kept under wraps. But it still doesn't matter because the news media has ignored the evidence and apparently they call the shots. Journalism is dead! If you want the truth you need to seek it actively, don't count on the elite, limousine liberals who are so out of touch with the rest of us who claim to be journalists but instead are activists tell you what you think, Take the red pill and come out to the matrix.

    • Brian
      October 30, 2018 at 8:18 pm

      now Tina was honest and genuine

  237. Mr D Longlegs
    September 5, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    Surely any source which continues to perpetrate that the TwinTowers attack, was initiated and carried out by a non-christian terrorist group, has to be excluded from any list of "unbiased news sources" ?

    • Ryan Dube
      September 5, 2017 at 11:19 pm

      I think you have a typo. You meant to type "was not initiated". And in that case, yes, you'd be correct. That's why we excluded them.

      • Brian
        October 30, 2018 at 8:20 pm

        that was no typo

    • Mychael m
      July 2, 2018 at 2:23 am

      For real?

  238. Des Gowan
    September 4, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    I would add Deutsche Welle ("DW") and France24, the German and French broadcasters,
    also "Euronews" (pan european and world news based in Lyons).

    Don't think RT would make the cut but I check it to see how they are slanting.

    Lots of others CBC Canada etc but all a bit local.

    • kenek
      November 28, 2017 at 7:24 pm

      "Lots of others CBC Canada etc but all a bit local."

      That would be communists and radical left (alt.left) who believe anything the Communist Broadcasting Corpse has anything unbiased to say. Canada is infested with these parasites. CBC defines fake news.

    • Fer
      November 8, 2018 at 3:04 pm

      I certainly wouldn't trust Frand24, as it belongs to France Médias Monde, a company under French government supervision.
      In France, recent "anti-fake-news laws" dangerously restrain freedom of speech by restoring a kind of governmental censorship...

  239. R. Hartman
    September 1, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    I was interested in your article until I saw Google News. Really? Google is well known as one of the biggest manipulators of what it calls "news" out there. Very very biased, to say the least! And the WSJ is no prize either. So, since you clearly have missed the mark on a story that was about hitting a non-biased mark, what does that say about YOUR reporting? Hmmm....... SMH

    • laurel
      December 11, 2017 at 11:51 pm

      Perfectly true!!!!!!!!!!!

  240. Chas Wrye
    August 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    I agree with most of your choices with the exception of the Wall Street Journal. It is owned by News Corp., the mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch which also owns Fox News. Replace WSJ with Al Jazera and you have a great list.

  241. Joe
    August 16, 2017 at 12:11 am

    Yes, the 5 you mention, would be great news for 1932 Germany ! Hitler,

  242. Johnny
    August 14, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    I was going to make a comment about how the BBC is a biased website when I realised that a lot of other people have already commented...

    In my opinion it seems to be particularly biased regarding UK politics, where it tends to favour the Conservative party. As this is contrary to some earlier comments, I would like to provide a reference:

    • Mike Poulin
      September 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      What a crock of horse hockey

  243. Sharon
    August 10, 2017 at 6:33 am

    You have got to be kidding me. What a load of crap. (((Whoever))) wrote this article is either living under a rock or an owned puppet, or something more sinister most likely. Everything they listed as trustworthy news is COMPLETE GARBAGE. Complete. Garbage. Gas it, throw it in a furnace and burn it. For 6 million years.

    • M Louise
      August 27, 2017 at 7:22 am

      Sharon - then please tell us five sites that you consider unbiased nees sources. Thank you.

      • tonk
        November 9, 2017 at 9:23 am

        russia today, france24, euronews, tyt, and deustche wells.

  244. Rocco
    August 7, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Good Lord! The BBC is one of the most biased, cringe-worthy, leftist, anti-British news websites EVER! Never take anything as being true if it's on the BBC site. Please use a bit of detective work if you're going to include "guaranteed free censorship' in your article.

  245. cy
    August 6, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Your site sounds to me as biased as all of the other networks or news sources!! Bummer!:(

  246. Johnny
    August 1, 2017 at 1:15 am

    Astounding unbiased news outlet ranking from a biased source. AP is #1 unbiased? And BBC, Reuters even made the list. Good lord.

  247. Stuart Granger
    July 29, 2017 at 9:41 am

    Shocked to see the BBC in this list. The BBC is a state broadcaster and has a very poor record of Balance in its reporting. Recent examples of biased politically charged propaganda: are Brexit reporting over an extended period and even now are in denial about its inevitability; toxic and false reporting about anything to do with Donald Trump; and every word reported about the Syrian conflict. They are an organisation staffed by 'entitled' elites with a self-belief in their duty to Form public opinion, as opposed to INform it. BBC news reports should carry a health warning.

  248. Micky Margalit
    July 29, 2017 at 6:57 am

    BBC on this fine list ??? BBC is not reporting the picture as is from Israel and the middle east for years .... and they do it systematically .... OUT of this list . Thanks Micky

  249. Gordon
    July 26, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    You are, I'm afraid, completely wrong about the BBC. It is has for many years been a left-wing organisation whose reporting standards are now a joke in Britain.
    It is completely pro -EU and pro socialist. Its handling of the vote to leave the EU was a national disgrace. Its TV discussion programs are constantly stuffed with panel members and audiences that are hand-picked to be predominantly left-wing and pro-EU. Large numbers of complaints to the BBC have been ignored but recently so many MPs have recieved a barage of complaints that the government is now forced to act. There is now an official investigation underway. I myself complained to my MP and he has confirmed passing my greivance to the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, from whom I will hear in due course.
    The BBC also censors news. The supremely newsworthy story that the BBC was being investigated for bias by Parliament went completely unreported.
    Maybe you guys should come to England and ASK PEOPLE HERE what they think about the "Brussels Broadcasting Company". You might learn something!

    • Wendy
      October 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

      Ok! You all having a fit about BBC look at the date this was published. A LOT has happened since 2010!

      • Dustin Alexander-Pérez
        October 6, 2017 at 7:48 pm

        Wendy, the article was published just this year. Where does 2010 fit into this?

  250. Kay Tandy
    July 23, 2017 at 3:46 am

    This website should be listed as incredibly biased toward incredibly untruthful and utterly censored "news" agencies. BBC-when it actually reports an entire story with all the facts ever, let us know genius. NPR.....long history of being disgustingly biased. Your article has to be satire.

  251. S. Ferguson
    July 1, 2017 at 10:24 am

    I would have to say the BBC is the best source.

    They don't take sides in politics and let the readers decide which side is right.

    • Gordon
      July 26, 2017 at 7:12 pm

      You have to be American.
      If you said that to most people in Britain they would fall about laughing.
      The BBC is completely infiltrated by the socialist left wing and is the most arrogantly biased "news" outlet in Britain. It is currently being investigated by Parliament for bias leading up to the vote to leave the EU. It gets 5billion pounds a year from the taxpayer. If you don't pay you get arrested and heavily fined. It is a criminal offence not to pay for the BBC. There is growing anger here at having to pay the BBC TAX. Many want it abolished.
      If you want unbiased and uncensored reporting you are more likely to find it on RUSSIA TODAY than the BBC. Personally, I would have it shut down tomorrow.

  252. T. McGrath
    June 28, 2017 at 11:56 am

    The AP, BBC, and NPR are not credible news sources. All three are Marxist propaganda sources, and the BBC is also anti-Semitic. Google News isn't even a news source, they push leftist propaganda from other sources.

    • Wishbone Ash
      July 22, 2017 at 11:27 pm

      BBC anti Semitic? who cares, maybe that IS clarity. Rothschilds Inc and Israel are the source of most of this war mongering crap anyway.

    • W. Grove
      December 16, 2017 at 9:05 pm

      T. McGrath wrote "the BBC is also anti-Semitic".

      Who, other than Jews, should care if *any* news source is "anti-Semitic"? There are only about 15 million Jews on the planet; a tiny percentage of the global population. There are far more Sikhs than Jews, but do we constantly hear about "anti-Sikhism"? There are slightly more Mormons than Jews. Is anyone (other than Mormons) going on about "anti-Mormonism"? -or "anti-Jainism"? -"anti-Yazidism"? -"anti-Zoroastrianism"? -"anti Jehovah's Witnessism"? And yet, each of those religions has been (or currently is) persecuted. WHO CARES?

      There's nothing special about being Jewish, any more than there is anything special about being a member of any other religion, and there's nothing categorically wrong with being critical of any or all of them. When newspapers publish articles critical of, or biased against, Scientology, do we get up in arms and cry "anti-Scientologism"? Of course not. So why should anyone care about anti-Semitism, any more than anti-anything else? The world does not owe you deference because of your tribal affiliation.

  253. 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.

    • TJ
      July 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm

      Yes, you are 100% correct. Right after President Obama was inaugurated, Google executive were seen leaving the White House after meeting with him. Also it's already been proven that negative things about Hillary Clinton's have been pushed to the back of the Google search engines it's been talked about over and over on more of the neutral news media Outlets. People set up the algorithms.

  254. 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.

      • RKmerica
        July 23, 2017 at 3:43 pm

        I think you're proving the point there... the both of you. One arguing for the Tory government, the other... opposing it entirely. Simple math: BBC is unbiased.

        • Gordon
          July 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm

          Then why is it currently being investigated by a British Parliament Select Committee for bias leading up to the Brexit vote? Living in the UK I have seen the lengths the BBC goes to to force its pro-EU and left wing bias on radio and TV audiences. The BBC is now out of control and government has been forced by MPs who have recieved thousands of complaints from constituents, to act against it.

  255. 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.

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

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

  257. 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!

  258. 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.

  259. 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.

    • Wishbone Ash
      July 22, 2017 at 11:30 pm

      yes they are less under the western cabal and yoke of globalism i.e. internationalists/marxists.

  260. Patrick
    May 20, 2017 at 12:20 pm 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!

  261. 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.

    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 -

    • RKmerica
      July 23, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      Great source there, I think I've seen it before.

    • Joy Borton
      October 11, 2017 at 7:36 pm

      What a refreshing response! After reading all of the other responses I was getting overwhelmed with the nasty, negative and disparaging remarks. We all seek to know the truth! I check several news outlets daily to get a realistic picture of what's happening. I will add your suggestion to my list. Thanks again!

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

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

  263. 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.

    • Wishbone Ash
      July 22, 2017 at 11:31 pm

      yes they do. BBC is an arm of Red Shield Inc propaganda. Western Media is controlled or controlled opposition.

  264. 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.

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

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

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

    Bbc? I came here to find a worthy answer you freakin kidding me????

  267. 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.

  268. 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...

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

    AP? You are kidding, right?

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

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

    • Tina Olesen
      October 25, 2017 at 7:11 am

      Thank you for a constructive contribution to the discussion! This site looks very useful.

  271. 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.
    11:13 AM · Mar 7, 2017

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

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

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


  274. 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!

  275. 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!!

  276. 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

  277. 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.

  278. 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.

  279. 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.

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

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


  281. 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.


  282. 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.

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

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


  284. 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!


  285. 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


  286. 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.


  287. 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?

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

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

  289. 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 about you guys list you unbias news sources.

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

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

      • Mike Fratus
        July 7, 2017 at 4:46 pm

        So? List them anyway.

    • 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!"....

    • SeekingToLearn
      December 3, 2018 at 12:44 pm

      Yes! Thank you, Abstract! I've been skimming through all the belly aching and zeroing in on suggestions to look into. Thanks to all who provided their suggestions in a civil manner.

  290. 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

    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.

    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

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

    Is this a joke!

  294. 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.

  295. 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.

  296. 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 (
    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
          Do pretty good

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

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

  298. 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.

  299. 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.

  300. 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.

  301. 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.

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

    The Independent is biased as anything, awful site.

  303. 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

  304. 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...

    • Brian
      October 30, 2018 at 8:45 pm

      Is there really such a thing as unbiased news?

  305. 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.

  306. 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

  307. 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.

  308. 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?

  309. 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.

  310. 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.

  311. 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

  312. 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.

  313. 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.

  314. 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.

  315. 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

  316. 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..)

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

    AlterNet has an obvious bias towards liberalism.

  318. 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.

  319. mike
    May 20, 2016 at 3:48 am will never sensor. Though new, the republic news is a great source of info.

    • SeekingToLearn
      December 3, 2018 at 12:55 pm

      Correction: It's dot org.

  320. 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?

  321. 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.

  322. 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

      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.

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

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

  324. 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.

  325. 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

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


  327. 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

      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

  328. 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.

  329. 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.

  330. 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 just not for you!

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

    The "cbc"(canada) said nor more critical aboriginal comments,The georgia 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.

  332. 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.

  333. 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.

    • Darin Davis
      November 14, 2018 at 6:17 pm

      Almost all news sources run opinion pieces in the form of editorials or in some instances just a bloviating talking head rambling bullshit. If you don't want this change the channel or station when their opinion programing starts. I believe the author is trying to give us a list of organizations that try and keep their opinion pieces and news reporting separate.

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

    Thank you for the listings :)

  335. Anonymous
    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.

  336. Anonymous
    August 18, 2015 at 5:16 am is a great progressive media source that has been around since 1997. It is independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

  337. Anonymous
    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.

  338. Anonymous
    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.

  339. 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.

  340. 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.

  341. 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.

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

    Very useful! Thanks!

  343. 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!

  344. 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.

  345. 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.

  346. 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.

  347. 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.

  348. 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!

  349. 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.

  350. 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).

  351. 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.

  352. 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

  353. 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."

  354. 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.

  355. 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.

  356. 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.

  357. 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".

  358. 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.

      • Gary
        October 8, 2019 at 12:59 pm

        I don't know where you get you new but you are certainly listening to the Hollywood and left leaning news crowd. Watch you may get what you wish for. Socialism to the MAX. Look at China and the USSR.

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

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

  360. 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!