12 Best News Sites You Can Trust

Dan Price Updated 07-12-2019

Fake news is a big issue right now. News companies are in the pockets of mega-billionaires. Media bias, inaccurate reporting, and sensationalism are on everyone’s mind. We are in an age where we don’t trust the people reporting the news.


Despite all this, there are some trustworthy news sources out there. You just have to know where to look.

What We Mean When We Say “Trustworthy”

Okay, let’s be candid here.

This is going to be a controversial article, no matter which news sites we suggest. Some people will disagree with the ones we choose. Others will be offended that we didn’t include their favorite media outlets.

Unfortunately, there’s no objective metric of trustworthiness. Most of the sites you’ll see listed made their way onto this list because they’ve developed a solid reputation for unbiased news, not-politically-motivated reporting. Yes, you can contest a reputation as it is also in flux always. It can’t be easily quantified (though we’ve cited sources where we can) and people will always have different opinions.

That being said, we stand by the assertions we make here. If you disagree, take to the comments and (civilly) tell us why. Also, note that we are presenting these credible news websites in alphabetical order and not ranking by trustworthiness.


A Note About AllSides

this is a screenshot of the AllSides website's homepage

In many of the entries below, we mention AllSides ratings. The ratings are from, which dedicates itself to exposing bias and providing multiple perspectives on issues. The site determines its ratings in a number of ways—you can read about them here.

AllSides is itself a great place to get news, as it clearly labels each story as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning. We highly recommend it when you want to see what different people are saying about the same issue. It’s eye-opening and can help you learn to pick out news bias elsewhere.

1. Associated Press News

This is a screenshot of the AP's homepage


If you read a lot of news, you’ll see the AP credited all over the place. They often report stories first, and other outlets pick up those stories and run them for their own readers. AP is a non-profit, has no corporate sponsorship, and is not government-funded. The crowd-sourced bias rating at AllSides is “center,” so it generally doesn’t favor a left- or right-leaning view of the world.

While you’ll most often see AP cited in other news outlets, you can get news directly from the source. By the way, you should also consider setting up Google Alerts How to Set Up Google Alerts for News, Shopping, and Entertainment Take Google Search a step further using Google Alerts. Here's how to set up Google Alerts and put your searches on auto-pilot. Read More for news if you don’t want to check it manually all the time.

2. BBC

This is a screenshot of the BBC's homepage

The British Broadcasting Corporation is the largest broadcaster in the world. The British government funds the organization and so it is not beholden to corporate interests. BBC has a history of over 90 years with a well-earned reputation for accurate, unbiased reporting. AllSides classifies it as a center news source—meaning if you want balance, it’s one of the best news sites.


Despite being center, U.S. citizens may find that “center” in the U.K. is notably to the left of what they’re used to.

The BBC’s reputation, however, is a strong one. It was one of the most highly rated in the Pew Research Center’s 2014 trustworthiness study, with all groups except the consistently conservative rating is as more trusted than distrusted. And even that group was relatively neutral about it.


This is a screenshot of Cspan's homepage

Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) has been around since 1979. The channel provides unbiased news coverage of the United States federal government, U.S. political events, and limited coverage from the governments of the U.K., Canada, and Australia.


C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization that has never failed a single fact check from

4. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

This is a screenshot of the bureau of investigative journalism's homepage

Though it has a focus on politics, the Bureau’s stories will likely be of interest to people even outside the British political beat. As a non-profit, independent media organization, it has few ties to groups that might influence its political leanings. The Bureau publishes its stories in conjunction with other outlets—from both sides of the spectrum.

Like, the Bureau isn’t listed on AllSides. But van Zandt, again, calls it among the most unbiased news outlets. Their stated mission is to “hold power to account,” and their goal certainly comes through in their journalism.

Note: A look at their major investigations does show that many of their stories focus on issues that are generally of more interest to the left. The group prides itself on fact-based reporting, however, and does pull together a lot of data to support their claims.

5. The Christian Science Monitor

This is a screenshot of Christian Science Monitor's homepage

Because it’s a news magazine, the format of the Christian Science Monitor is a little different from other best news sources on this list. They run fewer stories, but those stories tend to be very in-depth. It was founded in response to the sensationalist press of the early 1900s, and it’s maintained a strong reputation over 100 years later, maintaining its independence from mainstream media corporations.

There are two ways you can get news from CSM: through the daily edition (which gives you five daily stories each evening, along with an explanation of why they’re important) or the weekly version (which is also available in print). Unfortunately, neither are free. The daily will run you $11/month and the weekly is about $30/year. You can also grab it on your Kindle.

6. The Economist

This is a screenshot of the Economist's homepage

Although AllSides states that the Economist tends to lean left, it does have a reputation for high-quality reporting. The publication “considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity, and predictability.” (Though one has to wonder, if it considers itself the enemy of privilege and pomposity, why “Which MBA” and “Executive Education Navigator” are prominently featured in the main navigation.)

Throughout its history, the Economist has championed issues on both sides of the political spectrum. Today, it does tend to have a bit more of a left lean. That being said, they’re not afraid to align themselves with the party they believe best supports their ideals, which focus on free trade and free markets.

7. NPR

This is a screenshot of NPR's homepage

This is likely to be a controversial one, as public broadcasting NPR One Brings The Best Of US Public Broadcasting To iOS & Android Australia has the ABC, the UK has the BBC, Ireland has RTÉ, and America has the venerable NPR. Read More is strongly associated with liberal political views in the United States. However, NPR has a reputation for journalistic excellence. They’re invested in continued government funding, but they remain free of corporate bias. AllSides rates them as center, with a blind survey, third-party data, community feedback, and secondary research supporting their classification.

The Pew survey shows that conservatives tend to mistrust NPR, but its journalistic acumen is high. It’s known for rejecting sensationalism, issuing corrections when necessary, and fair reporting.

8. ProPublica

This is a screenshot of ProPublica's homepage

If you get your news from NPR, you’ve probably heard ProPublica mentioned. Like the AP, ProPublica is a non-profit, non-government-funded news organization. The fact that it was the first online news organization to win a Pulitzer Prize also gives it some credence (it’s gone on to win several more since then).

This is a smaller organization than some of the others mentioned on this list, but it’s absolutely worth checking out. We have a feeling they’re going to continue to grow, both in size and reputation.

9. Reuters

This is a screenshot of Reuter's homepage

Like the AP, other news outlets often cite Reuters—and that’s largely because it has a long and solid reputation for good reporting. The organization is owned by Thomson Reuters. This gives it added resistance to corporate influence. Reuters strives to use a “value-neutral approach” to guard against bias in its reporting (so much so that it has courted controversy, especially after refusing to use the word “terrorist” after the September 11 attacks in New York).

While you may not be as familiar with Reuters as some of the other outlets listed here, they have a long-standing reputation for good journalism. Their Handbook of Journalism is a great resource for anyone reporting the news, and Reuters editors hold their journalists to its tenets.

10. USA Today

This is a screenshot of USA Today's homepage

In 2016, USA Today shared the crown of widest circulation in the United States with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. It’s read all over the world and is a major source of news for millions of people every day. The op-eds in USA Today are clearly labeled and present a range of viewpoints (a refreshing change from the opinion pieces in some other publications).

AllSides gives the publication a center rating, although it notes that there’s been some disagreement. The fact that two blind surveys supported this rating adds weight, however. You might be used to seeing USA Today in front of your hotel room door, but if you’re looking for good news, do check their site regularly.

11. The Wall Street Journal

This is a screenshot of The Wall Street Journal's homepage

This is likely to be another controversial inclusion on the list, due to the ownership of WSJ by News Corporation, the mega-media conglomeration helmed by the Murdoch family. Rupert Murdoch has developed a reputation for being ruthlessly conservative and using his considerable media power for political influence. Some of his news outlets also have a deservedly terrible reputation.

The Journal, however, has consistently ranked as highly trusted in the United States, even after its takeover by News Corp. AllSides gives it a strong center rating, and it was the only outlet more trusted than distrusted by all groups in the 2014 Pew survey. It’s important to note that the news and opinions section of WSJ has a strictly enforced separation and that op-eds tend to have a very strong right-leaning bias. Despite that, the news (especially financial news The 10 Best Finance Sites to Help You Stay on Top of the Market Looking for the best finance websites to keep you on top of the market? Here are the best sites for news, investing, and more. Read More ) published by the outlet is of high quality.

12. FAIR

This is a screenshot of FAIR's homepage

If you’re interested in media bias—beyond finding media that’s minimally biased—you should definitely check out FAIR. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is a watchdog group that writes about media bias. They publish a number of remarkably stinging critiques of current news practices.

AllSides gives them a provisional center rating. On their homepage at the time of this writing are articles that critique CNN, the AP, and Roger Ailes (founder of Fox News). They don’t hold back, and no one is safe from their rhetoric.

Your Most Trusted News Outlets

These thirteen news sites have earned themselves reputations for being trustworthy. That said, news, in general, tends to have a negativity bias, which you can counteract by seeking out positive news Good News! 5 Places to Read or Hear Positive and Uplifting News There is a ton of positive, good news that you are missing, and these sites and apps can fix that for you. Read More .

Reporters and editors also have their own biases, so it’s impossible to find 100 percent unbiased news—and that probably wouldn’t be very fun to read anyway. But, in general, you can trust what you read from these outlets. The key is to read multiple publications that include a few credible news sources from the other side of the fence.

If you want to catch up with the news from mobile apps, go with these top free news apps for your phone. You might also want to install a few of these smart news apps to avoid fake news.

And if you want uncensored video footage of news you won’t see on TV 6 Shocking Video Websites to See News They Won't Show You on TV Sites like LiveLeak are for controversial news footage not shown on TV. Here are a few uncensored websites for shocking news. Read More , visit these websites:

Related topics: Apple News, Fake News, Google News, News.

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. Tellthetruthjackass
    June 6, 2020 at 6:23 am

    Wow, what an untrustworthy website. Going out of its way to list the most deceitful media outlets available, shame on you for pushing lies

  2. Christopher Nobles
    March 15, 2020 at 5:44 pm

    None of the listed news sites are "Trustworthy". I'm an independent and even I can see how left these news sources are.

  3. Ramunas
    February 21, 2020 at 9:54 am

    Im Lithuanian citizen Ramunas Šulcas.Im living in city Utena.. My family is a criminal victim. Kuzma family , and Lebionka family and other gangsters robed from me my daughter in 2011 year 12 month.Her name and surname is Smilte (Švegždaitė) Šulcaite . She is a pedophil victim.I think bad gangsters must be punished.VSD (government security organisation)in lithuania protect Gangsters and bad people who is a terrorists , police officers are criminal guys.Corruption is a real big problem in Lithuania.Bad people returned me into a homelessman.Please help me if you can

  4. Perry Rose
    December 27, 2019 at 2:01 pm

    I came here looking for some intelligent news sites, because I am so sick and tired of Yahoo and MSN's lousy reporting, ads disguised as news, and ridiculous stories on celebs.

  5. Brendan
    October 29, 2019 at 1:09 am

    Maybe this list is dominated by perceived 'left leaning' news outlets because to be seen as leaning right you have to be ignorant to the truth in many current affairs?

    Just a thought

  6. Business Connect
    August 26, 2019 at 9:53 am

    Nice and Informatics article i have ever seen. Bt BBC Is not Good for Some Reason. where i live the reporting and Fake News r Published through BBC.He Takes Money and Published Fake and Irresponsible news. That's, why I Call nice article bt Bbc, is as always Bad.
    Thanks and wel come.

  7. Anthony D McDaniel
    August 17, 2019 at 3:55 pm

    I just found your site this morning and have briefly looked at a few of the mentioned unbiased news sources. Allsides presents a very interesting way of reporting. I will watch it and learn. I just did a quick look at Propublica and went to the Trump administration tab. I am a conservative and am aware that President Trump's service is far from perfect. However, there have been some worthwhile accomplishments to report along with the questionable decisions. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that Propublica is unbiased. All of the articles I saw were negative.

  8. George Roper
    July 17, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    The moment I seen BBC on this list I was really worried. BBC might not be corporate owned, but it certainly does NOT produce fair reporting, at least some of the time. BBC certainly is a left leaning news producer and I have noticed they lie on certain topics, especially when it comes to news regarding right wingers. They have lied about Tommy Robinson, they have lied about Nigel Farage and many other right leaning people. Not to mention they lied about knowing nothing about the Jimmy saville scandal.

  9. Gabe
    June 26, 2019 at 11:46 am

    I agree with everything on this list except for FAIR. I had never heard of it before, but upon looking at the site it was clear they had a clear liberal bias. In fact, in their "About Us" section, they explicitly refer to themselves as a "progressive group."

    Strange to me that they're on this list.

  10. John Paul Morris
    June 12, 2019 at 1:36 am

    What a laugh, As I suspected. The 'fair' news outlets listed are Left Wing.

  11. Meg Luke
    June 4, 2019 at 9:54 pm

    I am an unapologetic liberal (50 years of driving my capitalist conservo CEO Dad nuts... and even winning a few-he taught me critical thinking and some debate strategies-thanks) and I was surprised to see quite a few entries. NPR and USA Today have a left leaning bias, ProPublica also. The WSJ in the 60s and 70s was a capitalist's dream and their daily dose of good American greed. Lately, not so much, but not sure if that is because as New Yorkers, they (and I) are in shock from the man we all goofed on is now our embarrassment to a good number of us that grew up with DT and his ridiculous shameless greed and whoring.
    NPR is a great org and used to have programming that was non-political. And USA Today started as a national newspaper aimed at businessmen on expense accounts at the Holiday Inn, thus, more conservative leaning.
    That said, I think that though many outlets are PERCEIVED as liberal today, that is because of the obvious shift in perspective of the conservatives. My parents were Ike Republicans. They were Christian but not the self-righteous type I see daily in my home now, Mississippi.
    The fundamentalist and evangelical sects have done a terrific job in gaining local and state politics. Dems and libs are fractured, backbiting kids at this juncture. Not sure the DNC could organize a 2 car funeral at this least not without 2 dozen opinions, a tiff with DT and a scandal or a fake news claim, from someone. I trust outside sources more than domestic, but they do seem, to a man, anti-Trump.
    Do Trump supporters really truly believe that 95% of all news outlets are lying, exaggerating, misconstruing daily what our Prez says and does? I hear him called a patriot, for the common man, savior of manufacturing jobs, guardian of our southern borders and the hordes? That he has OUR best interests at heart? Even when he calls any critic a traitor or nasty or corrupt or drunk? Really? And McCain was a coward? At least he went.
    I have a question for conservatives here: can you name 5 unbiased news orgs,? And QAnon Youtubers and InfoWars do not count. It must be an organization, not a clown car. Or even 5 news reporters or commentators? I would like to listen to a few.

    • Nicole
      June 20, 2019 at 8:16 pm

      I'm not asking this to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious. What outside sources do you trust most?

  12. James Stewart
    May 31, 2019 at 6:08 pm

    Hey MUD, (seems most of the MUO to MUD comments are justified) it would have served you better had this been posted on April 1st, you know fools day. It would be wise for the "joinalist" (yes I know how to correctly spell it) to check their information before publishing an article.

  13. Colin MacGillivray
    May 16, 2019 at 4:36 am

    To Dan Price from Colin MacGillivray
    Lots of pictures of Notre Dame here.
    My estimate, just completed, of repair costs after the fire is staggeringly low. It's based on UK contractor's input. Could you email me please and I'll send you the details. Thanks

  14. John Smith
    May 14, 2019 at 2:31 am

    ProPublica, NPR, and USA Today?
    Why not simple go to the DNC and get your news from there?
    Thanks for the suggestions, but I am not interested in whatever the far left peddles.

    • HA
      September 22, 2019 at 11:49 pm

      So you are only interested in what the far right peddles? Gotcha! It's easy to see the kind of person you are just by judging your obvious disdain of others viewpoints You are afraid to ever come to the realization that someone else may know more than you or be correct on something you disagree with. Maybe you should read up on some Socrates.

  15. GaryR
    May 2, 2019 at 8:36 pm

    Sorry MUD, stick with IT-related news, and don't even try to push these liberal "news" sites on us. As for NPR, they reported on 01/08/11 that my friend and then congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, was shot by "a Afghan war vet, using an AK-47". Talk about fake news...they totally fabricated that lie to fit a liberal narrative. And MUD actually promotes them; that says a lot about MUD.

    • Valerie Marak
      May 14, 2019 at 11:43 pm

      What is MUD?

    • Valerie Marak
      May 14, 2019 at 11:44 pm

      What is MUD...?

  16. Not fooled by MUD
    May 1, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    I question your definition of what is actual, factual, news and what is unbiased reporting. NPR - biased, The Economist - biased, WSJ - business news is probably ok, most of its editorial news, garbage.

    • Beware the Trump Trolls In All These Comments
      November 19, 2019 at 2:28 am

      Editorial Pages are not news and should not be considered when assessing a source of information. Its obvious that you don't understand how newspapers and newspaper derived sites work.

      Please explain why you think The Economist is biased... presuming you aren't just another Trump Troll account that immediately must make hit and run attacks.

  17. Kevin M
    April 30, 2019 at 6:19 pm

    Clearly MUD is NOT an authority when it comes to knowing the best news. This is just more political bias and while claiming to list sources that are not fake is in fact reporting fake news!

    • Kaleo
      April 30, 2019 at 7:16 pm

      Seriously? USA Today has always been Conservatively-biased.

      • Brew
        April 30, 2019 at 7:25 pm

        Kaleo, you are a fool. USAtoday is nowhere near conservative.

        MUD....... I am removing you from any further spam. Why not put huffblo on that list while you are at it? Almost EVERY one of the 12 are liberal leaning. Total garbage article. You lost me.

      • Fred Flinstone, IV
        May 1, 2019 at 6:05 am

        Kaleo, you misunderstood. Kevin M is clearly a lefty, complaining about all the right-wing outlets in the article.

      • John Smith
        May 14, 2019 at 2:32 am

        If you mention USA Today and Conservative in the same sentence, or context, then you have never paid attention.

  18. Fish
    April 30, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    This is more of a measure of where MUD stands politically than any actual measure of public opinion. That's obvious from the conclusions of the article.

  19. Steve
    April 30, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Most have left-wing biases. Hardly trustworthy. Obviously, you have your own obvious biases.

  20. John Smith
    April 27, 2019 at 9:59 am

    Really? BBC, USA Today, NPR, ProPublica on the list?
    I did not know that Make Use Of started publishing satire and troll articles.
    This article lost credibility, and so did the author.

    • Encognieto
      April 30, 2019 at 3:09 pm

      Yeah, REALLY? I just took MUD off my bookmarks. If you are capable of this level of getting it wrong, and supporting these sites that are well known fake news, lies and propaganda all day, I now know I can't trust anything you publish.

      Wow, talk about screwing the pooch. And I've on occassion thought you guys were doing ok stuff.

  21. Sand
    April 25, 2019 at 8:17 am

    Well, Who do you think we are?

  22. dragonmouth
    April 24, 2019 at 11:20 pm

    The definition of right, left and center depends where on the spectrum you see yourself. Same goes for the 12 news sites mentioned above. There are posters who feel BBC is left-leaning. There are others who feel that it leans to the right.

    People tend to consider THEIR OWN views as centrist when, in reality, they are anything but.

    • Dan Price
      May 15, 2019 at 12:49 pm

      Congrats for posting the only sensible reply :)

  23. Negan
    April 19, 2019 at 2:25 am

    BBC at no. 2?? Lol, no credibility here on this 'list'. Oh my goodness....?

    • Warren Warshaw
      April 30, 2019 at 9:10 pm

      If you actually read the beginning of the article, you would see that the sites are listed in alphabetical order.

  24. Kirk
    January 27, 2019 at 12:30 am

    It is very difficult to rely on a single source of information if you are trying to become well informed on a subject of importance in the news. My conclusion is that you need to read center biased media and left and right biased media. In doing so you often find the best talking points that each side is using to support their conclusions. Then you must evaluate each argument to judge how much weight you should afford them (this might require further research.) If you've done this honestly and reasonably, you are going to be in a much better position to understand the issue.

    An observation that I find disturbing is that most people are happy to read the biased media that supports the beliefs and biases they already have and prefer not to be challenged by contradictory information.

    • dragonmouth
      April 24, 2019 at 11:06 pm

      "An observation that I find disturbing is that most people are happy to read the biased media that supports the beliefs and biases they already have and prefer not to be challenged by contradictory information."
      Yes, it is very disturbing how most people are content to follow sheep-like. However, the observation is not surprising since most people do not want their comfortable, long held beliefs challenged.

  25. Bradley
    December 13, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    wall street journal is a forehead

  26. Mickey DiNero
    November 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm

    These days, it seems that pro-Trump conservatives aka Putin-is-a-friend GOP (Good on Putin) AmeriKKKans are the main ones accusing mainstream media of bias. Like the regime running the PRC, the cult of Mao/Xi terrorist regime, who accuse AP, Reuters, BBC, and any others that report on their thieving and human rights atrocities, the right claims bias when any media, including the few Fox News reporters expose Trump's lies, cozying up to and failure to condemn authoritarian leaders, and other wrong-doing. They want to read only praise and confirmation of Trump's lies. Fair-minded honest-hearted people just want the truth. When there is something good about this administration to report, we'll accept it. I subscribe to RAW, The Daily Beast, China Digital Times and Globalist, and watch MSNBC and CNN, plus China Uncensored, who all believe that exposing evil regimes is not biased reporting.

    • kirk
      January 26, 2019 at 5:57 pm

      Your choices of news (RAW for instance) assures you of getting the information that supports your already held beliefs. It is easier that way, nothing to challenge your thinking.

      • Deen hannem
        December 23, 2019 at 5:34 am

        And there it is your problem. Only news that fits you and facts bedamned. CNN really?

    • Kevin M
      April 30, 2019 at 6:23 pm

      Seems to me while you want to form opinions about these so called Putin-is-a-friend supporters, you are clearly on the other side spouting ignorance! Fact is if you want unbiased news you need to reconsider your sources because you have got NO clue what you are even talking about!

  27. Marcus
    August 14, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    I was genuinely very keen to read this article, to find a replacement to the BBC which has clearly taken a right wing leaning to the news over the last couple of years, only to find that it ranked number two and you consider it left wing!

    • AMC
      April 29, 2019 at 2:37 pm

      They're not ranked. They're in alphabetical order, as stated at the beginning.

    • Fred Flinstone, IV
      May 1, 2019 at 6:17 am

      If you read the article, you'll notice:
      The sites are not ranked;
      The article is not the author's opinion, but the result of research in a number of places he refers to.

      While the BBC has definitely moved to the right recently, it is still one of the best outlets around—unless you're fluent in a foreign language and can access news from some of the more advanced countries.

      WSJ & Economist have always been right-wing, but again their output is high quality and well worth reading for well-argued viewpoints. It doesn't matter which 'wing' an outlet favors, if it clearly states its bias and reports carefully.

  28. Ray Attwood
    June 2, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    Do you have an equivalent list for the UK, or are they all too far gone in being 'bought and paid for' ?

  29. Terry B
    May 19, 2018 at 7:43 pm

    Toronto Star fights wonderful fights for mankind's good. The Toronto Star's investigative team was nominated for putting "its money ... where its reporters are: digging compelling, provocative, and yes, socially important (remember that concept?) stories out of data, out of abuses and injustices, out of the rubble of post-earthquake Haiti, and out of surprising places like sports."

    The Journalism Integrity Award was established in 2009 to honour journalists or organizations that demonstrate a positive impact on the quality of journalism in Canada. The inaugural winners were the employees of the CHEK-TV newsroom in Victoria, BC, who bought the station and operated it as a local, independent news station dedicated to improving the quality and quantity of local news. The jury selects the winner from nominations submitted by J-Source readers and contributors.

  30. Celeste Ramsey
    April 15, 2018 at 5:34 pm

    Thank you for the article.

  31. Janet Beatrice
    December 24, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    Thank you for writing this! I do want to respectfully dispute WSJ being on the list after happening to read a couple of pieces today about journalists actually quitting because of its conservative bias. I don't mind if a news source leans a little bit to the right or left; as you said it's difficult to entirely escape bias. Here's one of the articles I read:

    I do agree with Baker that the language in news reporting, other than editorials, should be unbiased. The facts should speak for themselves. But here's an excerpt:

    “I agree with the principle that media needs to be careful and wary of going too far,” a source said. “But that’s not what we’re doing.”

    One staffer added: “Words have consequences and Gerry’s terrible handling of things like why we don’t call lies ‘lies’ had a chilling effect.”


    There's nothing biased about calling a lie a lie.

    • Dann Albright
      December 26, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      Yeah, WSJ, like most of the entries, is a controversial choice. And I think the lying thing is a little weird, too. But as far as right-leaning sources go, I still think it's one of the better ones.

      • Janet Beatrice
        December 26, 2017 at 4:30 pm

        Thanks for replying! I will read it with a critical but open mind (but then that is how we should read any legitimate news source). :-)

      • Steve
        August 15, 2018 at 2:24 pm


        Please check your math: “The publication was originally founded in response to the sensationalist press of the early 1990s, and it’s maintained a strong reputation over 100 years later”

        The 1990s was not THAT long ago.

        • Harvey
          May 1, 2019 at 7:28 pm

          I think he mistyped with "1990's". According to CSM's site, "It was founded in 1908 as a daily newspaper by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist."

        • Harvey
          May 1, 2019 at 7:30 pm

          And he has since updated the post to say "early 1900s".

    • kirk
      January 26, 2019 at 6:06 pm

      Call a Lie a Lie: here is what Baker said- and I agree with him:

      “If we are to use the term ‘lie’ in our reporting, then we have to be confident about the subject’s state of knowledge and his moral intent,” Baker explained of his approach.

    May 31, 2017 at 11:43 am

    Thanks for the information and comments! An education for me.

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:13 pm

      Glad you liked it! I knew it was going to be a controversial one, but I feel good about the sources that I chose in the end.

  33. Philip Bates
    May 31, 2017 at 11:39 am

    "AllSides classifies it as a center news source, though U.S. citizens may find that “center” in the U.K. is notably to the left of what they’re used to."

    I've never really thought about that, but yeah, that's very interesting. I find lots of people criticise the BBC for being more left-wing than it should be, but I've found (certainly since John Whittingdale's threats on the license fee) it's more right-wing at the moment. Which definitely isn't good. But that's what the media is like: no matter how unbiased something is supposed to be, politics *will* creep in. We just have to accept that. And I will defend the BBC because I think it's a wonderful organisation.

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:17 pm

      Yeah, and some outlets do tend to go back and forth depending on various factors. And because the political climate can often have a notable effect on public broadcasting, that's going to be the case. I'm not sure if having a bias that can be swayed is better than having a bias that tends to stay stable . . . I suppose it depends on your political views!

    • Christian Cawley
      June 1, 2017 at 6:48 am

      I think wrt the BBC, their problem is that their bias is trivial, rather than left/liberal. It's like they one day woke up and decided to forget the very basics of journalism. Instead, they tend to distract from the main points on topics they disapprove of. Very odd.

      IMO any organization (and I'm pretty much referring to them all here) that republishes press releases with little to no oversight is nothing more than a PR mouthpiece. For newspapers, that PR might come from corporations. For state run broadcasters, it's bound to be government, whatever the broadcasters' employees' personal political leanings.

    • William
      March 27, 2018 at 3:30 pm

      Ah! Dear old Auntie. Otherwise known as the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.

  34. BMon
    May 31, 2017 at 4:34 am

    YA, no this list is liberal left

  35. Zhong
    May 31, 2017 at 1:06 am

    I think you can judge if it's really true is to go straight to the source and do some digging.

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      If you're willing to put in the time and effort it takes to do that, it's definitely a good way to see if a particular news source is biased. It's not always easy, though. Which is why we have news organizations in the first place! :-)

  36. Schvenn
    May 31, 2017 at 12:44 am

    "originally founded in response to the sensationalist press of the early 1990s, and it’s maintained a strong reputation over 100 years later"

  37. Teofil
    May 30, 2017 at 3:02 pm

    They have censorship!!!
    There is no mainstream media which can claim trustworthy. All the publications you mentioned are with a strong bias and do not accept open dialog! See more what people like Noam Chomsky have to say about them... Make your research and use your own brains to distinguish between sources!
    See how they use terms like "terrorism" and "conspiracy theory". Don't orientate with the majority but with what makes sense and if you understand physics or whatever science, think and question things in spite of the majority! Then you will see how bias those sites are and how stupid some official theories can be! And if one site/publication doesn't respect the elementary logic, and rules of a decent debate, cut them of the list!
    All publications mentioned do not respect those rules!

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm

      What do you mean that these publications don't accept open dialog?

      • Teofil
        June 2, 2017 at 8:57 am

        I mean, they don't answer your comments... If you want to know more about where these publications are, I recommend the book : "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" by Richard E. Sprague! You will see what I mean!
        Enjoy searching with an open mind!

    • Lucas
      June 11, 2017 at 5:25 am

      I agree with your opinions

  38. Jean D.
    May 30, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Canadian Broadcasting Station (CBC/Radio-Canada) follows BBC inheritance with great unbias journalism. Although I consider it centered , it's maybe a bit on the left for american. It can't hurts to know what your closest neighbor is thinking?.

    Thanks for these great suggestions?, I bookmarked many of them.

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm

      I'm not familiar with CBC news, but I'll have to check it out! I think you're right that it would seem a little left here in the States, but on an international scale, I believe that it's probably pretty central.

      • James Duffy
        February 27, 2018 at 2:28 am

        If your not familiar with CBN News, how in the world could know which way it leans if it all?.

        Seems your credibility is now justifiably in questions!!!.....

        • Wilma Flinstone
          May 1, 2019 at 6:32 am

          Most news outlets in the world will seem left-leaning to USA readers, since USA's choice is between right and far-right, when measured by world politics.

          The author presumably knows this, as can anyone who has experienced both USA and abroad. I read the article as being aimed at an international audience, not USA.

    • Meg Luke
      June 4, 2019 at 10:17 pm

      Anything to the left of Attila the Hun or Pol Pot is considered "liberal" or more often "Commie" to most Americans anymore. I am a lifelong lib/progressive now living in Mississippi!!! I correct them by giving the dictionary definition of Communism and socialism, but hey, why listen to "intellectuals" and "fake scientists"??? What the hell do they know???
      The conservatives reside in an echo chamber, seeking confirmation bias-only seeking out sources that mimic their outlook. Anyone critical of their Prez is a traitor (Donnie tells them so-tho Constitution has a narrow, finite definition of treason), or a antifa (kinda like the bogeyman, huge, violent, bearded commies) or corrupt.
      I am an advocate for environmental issues here on the Gulf Coast. It is impossible to win a debate, or converts when any info, research, studies, evidence I have is, to them, manufactured, corrupted by outside evil globalists (Soros) or rabid anti-business, anti-jobs bias. They would rather live in ignorance, poorer than dirt, loyal to the core to a rotten, cronyistic system that uses them by shouting "God and Guns", and laughs at them behind closed doors. The BP Spill ruined us, our fishermen, oystermen, our culture, our wetlands, our marine life and beaches. And chemicals used made many sick, some died. But no one raises hell or sues-just a passive, serf like attitude that Boss knows best. He wouldn't lie. It is crazy-making....many of us woke up the day after Election Day and felt like we were tossed into a Dali painting or a Kafka novel-
      Anyway, rant over, sure I'll get some rabid remarks from the Other Side but, I'm old and I don't care what they think. Please believe that the US is still filled with decent folks, many of them religious or moderate conservatives. And our kids-well, rock on kids, you are the future. Hurry up and get here!

    • Meg Luke
      June 4, 2019 at 10:36 pm

      Hi Dann, just wanted to say thanks for the article. As a progressive, I say that many will blast you for listing "liberal" news outlets. And a few are quite openly lib, BUT that does not or should never dictate a journalist from presenting the news as professionally and as clearly as he/she can. Good journalists will seek other opinions or outlooks on the issue (unless it deals with, say, a flat earth or "we ain't monkeys" believer). The WSJ, and USA Today were more business oriented, thus more Republican for many years. Then the US morphed....not sure when, but by 2016 we realized WHAT it morphed into-a reactionary, exclusionary, Talibangelical and surreal world. A world where evidence, research, academia and science became the enemy. Where anyone who did not agree with Prez was a traitor, a "globalist elite commie" or a 'feminazi". Where responsible reporting became "fake news". Where even Sandy Hook and Newtown were "false flags with crisis actors"!!
      I never knew TRUTH could be so fluid! Anyway thanks for speaking for media and bias.

  39. Jean D.
    May 30, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Canadian Broadcasting Station (CBS/Radio-Canada) follows BBC inheritance with great journalism. It's mostly centered, but maybe a bit on the left for american. It's a public service so it's not under corporate influence.

  40. Johan Klos
    May 30, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Thank you for the list, it had some sites that I hadn't been following on my ever expanding RSS aggregator as yet.

    I have found and to be unbiased and trustworthy.

    The same goes for Washington Post, though Media Bias Fact Check website has that as left-center biased, apparently due to the use of loaded words. I haven't noticed that myself and I do keep a lookout for things like that (leading the reader, using loaded words).

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:25 pm

      I've heard good things about Politico and FiveThirtyEight. AllSides has them both listed as center, which is definitely a good sign. Using loaded words is something to watch out for, but that's also up for debate; what one person considers a "loaded" word might not seem out of the ordinary for another person. Thanks for posting a link to some evidence for your claim—it's hugely appreciated!

  41. Anshul Swami
    May 30, 2017 at 8:07 am

    is there any site for India too.

  42. Mark Davies
    May 30, 2017 at 8:07 am

    BBC you must be kidding!........It has become SO Liberal it's embarrassing!

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:26 pm

      Do you have objective evidence of that? Any studies, surveys, anything like that? Another commenter thinks it's been moving to the conservative side, so I'd love to see if anyone has done some research on this topic.

    • Brian Astbury
      March 9, 2018 at 6:25 pm

      Liberal?!?! Ye gods! What's your definition of liberal?

    • Wilma Flinstone
      May 1, 2019 at 6:35 am

      He means the traditional meaning of liberal, ie right-leaning in favor of corporations, free markets, free trade etc.

  43. Lolol
    May 30, 2017 at 6:19 am

    So I got to this article through Google now, which explains everything...

  44. Colin
    May 30, 2017 at 2:01 am

    Did I not read this same story on this site late last year or very early this year? A good story probably worth repeating.

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:27 pm

      We had a similar story about news sites that are free from censorship . . . which is related, but slightly different. Many of the same sites showed up in both lists, though.

  45. Smoss
    May 29, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    Many of these I am not as familiar with, so I can't comment; there a few that I have personally noticed bias on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, I think both sides like to have their views reinforced; therefore, bias is not only accepted, it is preferred.
    When we hear facts that counter to what we believe, we get angry or dismiss them outright.

    Because of where I work, I am forced to watch an alternative news source. This allows me to see another side and decide how credible each position is. I have been forced to one conclusion.
    Politicians on both side are full of S&$#!! They all lie, they all say what you want to hear, you are a fool if you think your side is telling the truth. 80% of americans are more closely aligned than we think, but the party extremes keep us looking at eachother, so we don't look at them!

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:28 pm

      Which alternative news source do you watch? I'd be curious to check it out. I agree with you that we generally prefer biased news to reinforce our views; it's just like the echo chamber effect on social media. It's much easier to listen to people you agree with.

      • Shawn
        May 31, 2017 at 3:36 pm

        By "Alternative", I mean alternative to my "leanings". I am a fiscal conservative and social hybrid (Libertarian/Christian). I listen to some talk radio and watch CNN. In both cases, I find they completely dismiss the shortcomings of their own party (preference) and attack similar behaviors in the opposition. The truth is usually somewhere in between.

        Two examples; Obama not being a citizen and Trum urinating on Russian prostitutes. I try to wait a few months before believing anything, because it usually isn't true.

  46. John Smith
    May 29, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    When you list NPR as a trusted source, then the article has lost credibility.

    • Dann Albright
      May 29, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      Why's that? And what would you suggest I replace it with? If you can point to any objective measures or non-partisan groups that indicate that it's biased, I'd be very open to hearing about it.

      • John Smith
        May 30, 2017 at 12:49 am

        I don't want to sound rude, but the old saying, if you have to ask...
        Maybe you don't follow/listen to them that much, I'll give you a break. But even NRP admits liberal bias.

        There are several instances of that, but I can given you two links.
        Granted, MRC is a conservative resource, but here is another one, from 2011 from Forbes.

        Replacement suggestions? I have to be honest. There is not a single news sources today that is not biased. This is why I monitory both sides, and then do my own homework on things that matter most.
        There is always an agenda behind the way news are reported today. Journalism is long dead.

        • Dann Albright
          May 31, 2017 at 2:33 pm

          Thanks for posting those links! When I ask people for evidence, they usually just ignore it. Because the MRC is pretty openly conservatively biased, I'm just going to skip that one (the language and evidence used in the piece speak for themselves). The Forbes article, however, is interesting. I think the title of that piece is misleading, because the study cited actually doesn't say anything about the ideology of the outlets. It only makes a point about their connections on Twitter, which—as the author points out—likely has more to do with the perception of that particular news source than the actual content of its programming. And I do believe that NPR is viewed more liberally than it actually is. So that fits well with the study. Also, this study was published in 2011, and the blind survey listed on AllSides is more recent by two years, so it's possible that some things have changed.

      • John Smith
        May 30, 2017 at 1:36 am

        I responded explaining why, but it seems that comment was caught up in your spam fitlers. I had links to couple of sources.

        • John Smith
          June 6, 2017 at 3:45 am

          @Dann Albright
          Thanks for the update
          Well, you look at titles and then judge the article. If you look carefully, MRC, while certainly a conservative source, the maintain objectivity in such studies. The scientific criteria and sampling, almost identical to Forbes's. So it is not that different.
          The argument that this is an old study and things may have changed today is almost not valid.
          Are you aware of any publication or news source of that size changing partisanship? There is no such thing. They actually double down on what they are trying to convince their readers to follow or believe.
          One thing to note, people accused Forbes of being biased to the right too. So if we are going to dismiss them too, that means nothing will convince anyone anymore.
          I would suggest that you examine the MRC's article and if you have anything against it, please feel free to share here or in a new article. I read both sides of the isle, and yes, I am a conservative, but always listen to the opposing opinion and then dismiss the invalid claims.

    • Keith
      May 29, 2017 at 9:28 pm

      @John Smith, you obviously didn't read or understand Dann's explanation for including NPR: "This is likely to be a controversial one, as public broadcasting is strongly associated with liberal political views in the United States. However, NPR has a reputation for journalistic excellence. They’re invested in continued government funding, but they remain free of corporate bias. AllSides rates them as center, with a blind survey, third-party data, community feedback, and secondary research supporting their classification."

      An article or author doesn't lose credibility just because one happens to disagree with them. Credibility is more about facts than opinions. This article is clearly an opinion piece, although Dann does a good job of supporting his opinion with facts. And you can disagree with one thing a person says without disbelieving everything else they say. You must be a very lonely person if you stop listening to everyone you disagree with!

      • John Smith
        May 30, 2017 at 1:01 am

        Dude, who urinated in your cornflakes?
        You seem very "offended" by my one line comment, drawing a 2 run-n paragraphs borderline psychotic rant from you.
        Let me see if I can dumb this down to explain it to you.

        You need to read carefully before you judge others based on your failure in reading comprehension. That way you also spare the rest of us another run-on rant, your self assumed higher moral ground and your attitude.

        Here is why you failed, miserably.
        My words could not be simpler "then the article has lost credibility.", which clearly saying the ARTICLE lost credibility.

        Your read that as with your long rant
        "An article or author doesn't lose credibility just because one happens to disagree with them"
        Where and when did I even mention that the author lost credibility?
        You can make mistakes, post articles that not credible, that does not make the author not credible.
        Unlike you, we don't judge others, we post opinions.
        And contrary to what you have been led to believe in, there are facts that one can use to show why an article loses credibility, and it is obvious you missed those facts.

        "You must be a very lonely person if you stop listening to everyone you disagree with!"

        This line alone in your borderline psychotic rant shows that you are a waste of time to argue with. You are not interested in arguing like adults, you just throw random accusations and judge people you never met before, although your writing style and rhetoric sound familiar, seen that from another person here, but since MUO does not verify who is posting what you could be anyone.

        I suggest you see someone about your arguing style and apparent anger issues that I detect in your comment. Maybe hanging with your family on this long weekend instead of trying to pick up fights with random strangers commenting on random sites.

        • Andrew
          May 30, 2017 at 2:34 am

          I like how you wrote an unnecessarily long response to a comment in which you complained about the initial comment being too long, and yet you also managed to do so without actually making an argument.

        • John Smith
          May 30, 2017 at 3:16 am

          "I like how you wrote an unnecessarily long response to a comment in which you complained about the initial comment being too long, and yet you also managed to do so without actually making an argument."

          If you would stop sock puppeting and use one account. I can respond once and for all. Every time I put you in your place, some random account comes out of the woodwork and starts attacking me.
          Actually I debunked his/your psychotic rant, not to mention his long psychotic rant was a response to a one line observation from me, but as usual, trolls like you lie to get attention, and facts go flying over your head.

          Nice try, better luck next time, troll.

    • Jewellpage
      May 31, 2017 at 10:04 am


      • Dann Albright
        May 31, 2017 at 2:34 pm

        You seem to be agreeing that the inclusion of NPR in this article casts a negative light on the entire piece, but you haven't said why. I'm curious to find out why you think that, despite the quantitative evidence that I supplied.

    • James Duffy
      February 27, 2018 at 2:36 am

      My thoughts excatly!... Also, anyone who can not see the NPR biases should not compile this type of list. PERIOD!

  47. Mr. Marcus
    May 29, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    IMO, ever since the run-up to the 2017 U.S. Presidential election, “fake news” has become a sexy buzzword used by quite a few politicians, with several organizations directing now resources toward understanding and fighting it. (Even MUO is doing its part to combat such)

    I've remained silent on this issue here mostly because of the charged political times we live and I have no desire to enter into a drawn out "twitter" political debate and controversy. (Having said that I now begin to post what may undoubtedly lead to that very same thing)

    Let's face it, social media has completely transformed the way we create, distribute and consume news. In recent times, it has become a driving force in shaping political beliefs as well as both online and offline behavior. In our persuit of "likes" and "clicks" (yes Facebook, we're looking at you) we have seen journalistic integrity and deep research take a back seat and just like online advertising sites some news houses now present us with "clickbait"

    Our social media has become somewhat of an echo chamber in which the content, pages and even people that we engage with in the online space increasingly serve to confirm our own personal biases and belief systems.

    "But perhaps what’s even more interesting is how social media events are increasingly shaping the mainstream news agenda. You need to look no further than Donald Trump’s strategic use of Twitter throughout last year’s US presidential election to divert and shape the news to suit his own agenda." (That's a quote from Telsyte’s Australian Digital Consumer Study, like I've said...I've been thinking about this topic for some time now)

    Can anyone remember a lawsuit against Trump University that was recently settled in November? Significant coverage of the 25 million fraud case settlement was overshadowed by the media feeding frenzy that ensued following a tweet by President Trump demanding that the cast of the Broadway show Hamilton, apologize to Mike Pence after he was booed at a performance that same night. I can't recall one single station (save and except the BBC, which most average Americans either don't know exists or don't watch period) putting the settlement front and center. You see how ONE man shaped news output? Now imagine how many other people and businesses engage in a similar strategy to Trump, yet we just don’t see it.

    As news stories continue to unfold in real-time, media outlets have a "duty-of-care" (a British law tort term) to uphold journalistic integrity at all costs. However in a 24/7 news cycle and the pursuit for viewers has meant sufficient research and fact checking are often forgotten in favor of clickbait articles or titillating, salacious stories. President Trump has about 46 million followers across his personal Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, his influence travels globally and is often a source of news that’s influential enough to drive and sway hundreds of pieces of media stories (real and fake) through one post. President Obama in 2009 had about 80 million followers, and that was "way-back-when"...maybe we should blame him for showing up and coming politicians how to use the muscle of social media? or would THAT be fake-news?

    Whether intentional or not, foreseen or not, social media has moved far beyond a platform that was initially intended to facilitate communication and networking between users, it has become a way to filter and reinforce out own echo chamber.

    I try to the echo-chamber by attempting (forcing myself) to not listen to the same news channel every day, nor the same radio station (that's hard) or simply just reading the headline (that how some folks get their news believe it or not). I try to change it up a bit, step outside of my view-point and consider something new, it don't always work but it's a start,...well, I had lots more to say but don't want some to post TLDR...
    (British humor, or maybe not:...I hear that Boris Johnson is making a motion in British Parliment to have the Borough of Lewisham become and independent European country and elect himself as Prime Minister for life...FAKENEWS...) lol

    • Dann Albright
      May 31, 2017 at 2:37 pm

      I agree with a lot of what you're saying here—social media (and the internet age at large) has made a big difference in how we consume news. The same could be said about when we switched from written to TV news, too. Changes in media always affect how we consume our news, and media are changing all the time. How we deal with that is—obviously—a larger question. Clickbait certainly isn't helping, but by trying to point out to people which news outlets are trustworthy (or at least more so than others), I hope to help people develop some resistance to that. The popularity of highly biased, extremely sensational news sources shows that we have a long way to go, but maybe there's hope.

      • Wilma Flinstone
        May 1, 2019 at 6:53 am

        "How we deal with that"

        It's like direct democracy. It doesn't work well with electorates which are politically uneducated and naive, eg US & UK.

        Deal with it thru high/secondary school civics & government classes. Show students the tricks used by cynical opportunists to deceive the gullible and politically unsophisticated.

  48. H R Chafin
    May 29, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    Dann, one of your comments makes sense, is right on target, and it gives me greater confidence in the rest of what you've written. You say "[u]nfortunately, there’s no objective metric of trustworthiness. Most of the sites you’ll see listed made their way onto this list because they’ve developed a solid reputation for unbiased, not-politically-motivated reporting. Of course, reputation is something that’s always contested and in flux. It can’t be easily quantified (though I’ve cited sources where I can) and people will always have different opinions." No one with a living brain cell is completely unbiased, however much we may strive and claim to be. Thanks for being upfront and honest about your criteria; it looks like you're making a best-effort attempt to be as objective as possible and I salute you for that.

    As an ex-pat US citizen for many years I've relied on BBC and The Economist for international news, and for an outsider's, reasonably objective view of US events. Every source I take with a grain (or more) of salt, and I try to balance sources to sort of "average out" what I hope to be something fairly close to the truth. "Trust no one" still works for me.

    • Dann Albright
      May 29, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      I expected to only receive childish vitriol in response to this article, so I very much appreciate your comment! I really did try to be as objective as possible. I'm happy with the list I came up with, even though I know that some people will hit the comments section hard. The BBC is a great source of info on US events, as you mentioned, and trying to balance your news intake is a great idea. That's why I frequent AllSides—I read articles from both sides to see what people are saying, and then try to draw my own conclusions. And yeah, "trust no one" won't really let you down when it comes to news. :-)