I honestly think you might be taking the wrong approach here. Every newspaper has some element of opinion and slant to their reporting, even the more centrist and/or objective ones, just by virtue...
I honestly think you might be taking the wrong approach here. Every newspaper has some element of opinion and slant to their reporting, even the more centrist and/or objective ones, just by virtue of what they choose to report on and what they don't. IMO the better approach is not to try and narrow down your sources (although cutting out the obviously horribly biased ones helps) but to actually focus on improving your critical thinking skills regarding what you read.. which @Adys made a great comment on in a recent ~tildes topic:
Getting your news from only tildes will severely filter your worldview. Even if the activity on Tildes was 100x what it is now and you read everything, there's a demographic filter here.
But I don't think there's anything inherently bad about not knowing everything. The more important thing is to be able to be critical of the news that does seep through, and know when to research further vs. letting your opinion get formed too quickly.
The trap that many fall into is when you don't have the time to do the research. Which is completely fine, but if you don't have the time, you have to be able to refuse to form an opinion and say "I don't know enough about this".
The danger of the filter bubble is one of confirmation bias. It's even more aggressive when personalization is in play (eg. you're an antivaxxer trapped in an unending flood of BS anti-vaccination articles), but there's also the risk of holding an opinion, thus subconsciously or consciously not clicking on articles/links that sound like they might go against your opinion.
So yeah, the key is to constantly be able to question what you read, know how to do further research (and also know when to stop). You should be able to challenge opinions you hold very strongly. For a fitting political example, regardless of your party affiliation, you should equally be able to challenge your belief that Trump is innocent and that Trump is guilty. (Yes Tilders, if Mueller does exonerate Trump, you should be able to accept the premise. I've seen too many people believe Barr's summary was trustworthy, and immediately jump on "Well Mueller isn't trustworthy" as a defence. This isn't how it works.)
I would also highly recommend watching one of Smarter Every Day's latest videos where he touches on the same topic and investigates what skills you need to develop to help identify fake news and misinformation: Why Your Newsfeed SUCKS - Smarter Every Day 212
If you just want news, then I suggest a newswire from a press agency like AFP, Reuters or similar. This is the closest you'll ever get to completely neutral news coverage...
If you just want news, then I suggest a newswire from a press agency like AFP, Reuters or similar. This is the closest you'll ever get to completely neutral news coverage
As far as newspapers go, I usually look at DW.com, The Guardian, BBC, El Pais, France24, Mail & Guardian and AllAfrica.com most days. I also occasionally look at some US publications like NYT or LA Times.
People reading this post might also be interested in these previous discussions: What are your most trusted news sources and why? Quality news sources How do you get your news?
Exemplary
People reading this post might also be interested in these previous discussions:
Which country or region or sociocultural / socioeconomical community? What language(s)? It is really annoying when there are implied default answers to these like Anglosphere / the US & English....
Which country or region or sociocultural / socioeconomical community? What language(s)? It is really annoying when there are implied default answers to these like Anglosphere / the US & English.
Anyhow. I like Guardian quite a bit for international news in English. I also follow Internazionale.it, in Italian. I also follow a few NYT columns, the Interpreter is the news related one. For Turkish news, I follow Evrensel, Diken and Deutsche Welle's Turkish service. In Portuguese, Publico.pt seems to be nice, I'm using their international news to learn European Portuguese and I'm only a beginner ATM, so I can't tell for sure.
I'm quite envious of polyglots; I can just about stagger through Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel in the original language, but other untranslated sources are lost to me. Do you find there's a...
I'm quite envious of polyglots; I can just about stagger through Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel in the original language, but other untranslated sources are lost to me.
Do you find there's a significant difference between the content or slant of sources you can read natively, and their English-language editions?
TBH I've never compared. But I can say websites like Hurriyet Daily News and Daily Sabah, which are English versions of Turkish newspapers Hurriyet and Sabah respectively, both pro-govt...
TBH I've never compared. But I can say websites like Hurriyet Daily News and Daily Sabah, which are English versions of Turkish newspapers Hurriyet and Sabah respectively, both pro-govt (subordinated to the AKP actually), feel like they are created and maintained as a PR thingy for the country, and do not reflect the facts as they are in the country, but polish or hide them. If I was to advice an Anglophone who wants to follow Turkish media, I'd heavily suggest comparing these outlets with the output of Al-Jazeera, Reuters, Guardian, NYTimes, and even Sputnik (whose Turkish version is seemingly pro-opposition), or even just ignoring them. More honest outlets have occasional English content, but I haven't read them and they are not really frequent enough.
BBC's and DW's Turkish service seems to be rather neutral, but with DW rather pro-opposition, and none pro-govt. I haven't read much of BBC's English covering of Turkey facts, and I don't know German beyond the very beginner stuff so I can't follow DW in German.
I can't comment on Italian/Portuguese outlets because I haven't read English coverage from them. I've read a few articles about Turkey on Internazionale.it which were translated from English tho, and they were good.
So that was a wordy way to respond "Yes-ish." Sorry :P
Thank you - I suppose I should open up the question to other multi-lingual news readers as well, but you're a uniquely qualified source on language and reside outside the common sphere of...
Thank you - I suppose I should open up the question to other multi-lingual news readers as well, but you're a uniquely qualified source on language and reside outside the common sphere of Anglo/Euro influence here.
You're welcome, and thanks! There are quite some folks here from various places of Europe and Brazil I've encountered, and even a couple other folks from Turkey; so a question like that would...
You're welcome, and thanks! There are quite some folks here from various places of Europe and Brazil I've encountered, and even a couple other folks from Turkey; so a question like that would probably get some nice answers (tho I avoid ~news and news discussion online in general, so IDK what the weather is like over yonder).
Any of the major newspapers should be fine. I personally like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer (among others). Here's a graphic that...
Any of the major newspapers should be fine. I personally like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer (among others). Here's a graphic that should help you visualize the perceived biases.
honestly, the ubiquity of this chart irritates me because it's so... utterly subjective, one dimensional, and just kinda silly if you actually analyze it in any way. how do you quantify, in a...
honestly, the ubiquity of this chart irritates me because it's so... utterly subjective, one dimensional, and just kinda silly if you actually analyze it in any way. how do you quantify, in a particularly objective capacity, the partisan lean of a news outlet aside from basically eyeballing it, for example? and why is everything liberal-conservative, but then places like jacobin which literally aren't either of those included (jacobin is a socialist publication, not a liberal one). what constitutes "complex" or "original" analysis, and why does original analysis trump complex analysis necessarily? what makes democracy now a more complex source than say, vox? what makes buzzfeed news a more left-wing source than MSNBC? why does this chart treat local news as universally the same, when the quality of local newspapers is massively variant and usually greatly limited depending on the resources of the area? the denver post for example probably isn't of the same quality as like, the fucking tallahassee democrat or whatever.
i really don't think any of these "media bias" charts get it right, because the fact of the matter is you just can't boil down information like that in a way that's especially meaningful. you can't just say all fox news reporting is shitty and wrong because fox news is an inherently partisan source, nor can you say that every person's hot take on dailykos or MSNBC is wrong because it isn't a complex analysis or because those people have inherent agendas behind their words. you can caution people, sure, and maybe in general people should use the washington post as a source over like, vox or some shit--but that's not always a given, and it's not always that simple, and i wish people would stop treating it like it is or like you should just dismiss certain sources out of hand because they are partisan or biased because sometimes those places do get it right. that's not to say you even need to balance your media diet either. i couldn't care less if all you do is read "liberal" sources or "conservative ones--but i think in general, you need to be able to critically think about how a source reports something and accept it or reject it based on that over just outright dismissing a source because of the way it falls, and thus these charts always end up leading people in the wrong direction because that's something literally none of them can ever hope to account for.
They have a methodology report that may answer some of your questions. I do think it's hard to distill these things into a two-dimensional chart, though.
all i can say is wow, that methodology (and the updated chart) is entirely subjective and basically has no objective backing whatsoever. it's literally just whatever the fuck their interpreters...
They have a methodology report that may answer some of your questions.
all i can say is wow, that methodology (and the updated chart) is entirely subjective and basically has no objective backing whatsoever. it's literally just whatever the fuck their interpreters make of it, even if that interpretation is way off the fucking mark (like jacobin, which they have to shoehorn into the "liberal" column and which is somehow only barely to the left of daily kos because their chart fails to account for any sort of actual leftist ideology). i honestly think i've seen reddit posts with more rigorous standards than that methodology.
It's literally not either of those things... unless you also classify the industry standard fact-checking methodology of Poynter institute, Politifact and WaPo to have "no objective backing...
that methodology (and the updated chart) is entirely subjective and basically has no objective backing whatsoever. it's literally just whatever the fuck their interpreters make of it
It's literally not either of those things... unless you also classify the industry standard fact-checking methodology of Poynter institute, Politifact and WaPo to have "no objective backing whatsoever" as well, since they are who Ad Fontes uses for their qualitative analysis.
The primary way statements are currently evaluated in the news are on the basis of truthfulness, which is arguably the most important ranking metric. Several existing fact-checking sites, such as Politifact and Washington Post Fact Checker, use a scale to rate the veracity of statements; Politifact has six levels and Washington Post Fact Checker has four, reflecting that many statements are not entirely either true or false. I score each sentence on a similar “Veracity” metric, as follows:
True and Complete
Mostly True/ True but Incomplete
Mixed True and False
Mostly False or Misleading
False
Since there are many reputable organizations that do this type of fact-checking work, according to well-established industry standards, (see, e.g., Poynter International Fact Checking Network), I do not replicate this work myself but rather rely on these sources for fact checking.
i honestly think i've seen reddit posts with more rigorous standards than that methodology.
We get it, their 2-dimensional Liberal-Conservative scale is not as nuanced as you would like, and you dislike it as well as jacobin's placement on it... but can you cut the hyperbole out please?
fact-checking isn't media bias, so their whole shtick as fact-checkers outside of their chart isn't really relevant to my overall point that "media bias" charts as a whole are stupid and unhelpful...
It's literally not either of those things... unless you also classify the industry standard fact-checking methodology of Poynter institute, Politifact and WaPo to have "no objective backing whatsoever" as well, since they are largely who Ad Fontes uses for their qualitative analysis.
fact-checking isn't media bias, so their whole shtick as fact-checkers outside of their chart isn't really relevant to my overall point that "media bias" charts as a whole are stupid and unhelpful for discussions like this because they can't capture nuances like how bad sources can put out good reporting, or how just because a source has a slant or bias does not condemn all its reporting to being junk. actually, you're literally demonstrating my point in this thread: they can be good at one thing (fact-checking) and way the fuck off base in another (their "media bias" chart).
the notorious strawman of... literally what the chart says...? like, the axes of the chart characterize fox news as "nonsense damaging to the public discourse" and "propaganda" and huffington post...
Nobody said they can't.
Nobody is saying that either. You are building strawmen and attacking them.
the notorious strawman of... literally what the chart says...? like, the axes of the chart characterize fox news as "nonsense damaging to the public discourse" and "propaganda" and huffington post as "unfairly characterizing the news" and "selective and incomplete story; unfair persuasion". are you genuinely about to argue that their characterization of these sources, for example, doesn't at the literal minimum imply that they're bad sources or that, alternatively, most or all of their reporting is junk?
Just because a source often contains misleading information or unfairly characterizes the news, does not mean none of their reporting is worth heeding or you should outright dismiss them. Yes,...
Just because a source often contains misleading information or unfairly characterizes the news, does not mean none of their reporting is worth heeding or you should outright dismiss them. Yes, they are generally a bad source and you should be more wary and extra-critical of their reporting, but that doesn't mean they can't have good articles as well. Buzzfeed News is a perfect example of this and I have even defended them in the past despite their shortcomings in that regard.
And I also don't think their including Fox news in the "propaganda/damaging to public discourse" rectangle is an unfair characterization, nor is their assessment of Huffington post either. Both still occasionally have good articles, similar to Daily Mail (who I have also defended) but people should also be made aware of their slant and history when it comes to factual reporting when reading them.
you're basically agreeing with my argument in all of this, then, because i pretty much said as much in the post that sparked this chain:
you're basically agreeing with my argument in all of this, then, because i pretty much said as much in the post that sparked this chain:
i really don't think any of these "media bias" charts get it right, because the fact of the matter is you just can't boil down information like that in a way that's especially meaningful. you can't just say all fox news reporting is shitty and wrong because fox news is an inherently partisan source, nor can you say that every person's hot take on dailykos or MSNBC is wrong because it isn't a complex analysis or because those people have inherent agendas behind their words. you can caution people, sure, and maybe in general people should use the washington post as a source over like, vox or some shit--but that's not always a given, and it's not always that simple, and i wish people would stop treating it like it is or like you should just dismiss certain sources out of hand because they are partisan or biased because sometimes those places do get it right...
Yes, I did mostly agree with that. But I didn't reply to your first comment... I replied to your (IMO) hyperbolic attack on their methodology and subsequent straw man argument. p.s. I think these...
Yes, I did mostly agree with that. But I didn't reply to your first comment... I replied to your (IMO) hyperbolic attack on their methodology and subsequent straw man argument.
p.s. I think these media bias charts do have their place and are still valuable resources though, unlike you (I suspect).
how in the world do you even categorize a publication like the atlantic on a single-axis political spectrum, anyways? the atlantic has been a thing for like, 150 years and its whole purpose has...
No offense, but that chart is extremely stupid and should never be shared by anyone. Anyone with a modicum of familiarity with these publications would laugh out loud if you told them the Intercept, Jacobin, and Democracy Now! are in the same political hemisphere as the Nation and Mother Jones, let alone Slate and the fucking Atlantic.
how in the world do you even categorize a publication like the atlantic on a single-axis political spectrum, anyways? the atlantic has been a thing for like, 150 years and its whole purpose has changed drastically over the course of its existence (and is still changing). i'm not even sure you can really peg it, politically, because its politics change from day to day and month to month.
I like the NYTimes and NPR for American news. When I think of it I read Al Jazeera for international (non-American) news, but I don't read it much. I've heard they're quite good though. I feel...
I like the NYTimes and NPR for American news. When I think of it I read Al Jazeera for international (non-American) news, but I don't read it much. I've heard they're quite good though. I feel like a good news diet would also include a local paper, so that'll depend on where you live.
Honestly, as far as "fake news" goes, I agree with @cfabbro that the really important thing is to read everything you read critically -- just because it's news doesn't mean it's the Gospel Truth; in fact, even fact-based reporting can change due to new facts coming to the surface as the story develops. Look at the news as a way to know what's going on -- and form your own opinions.
EDIT to respond to something you said (emphasis mine):
I want a newspaper that is distributing the facts as they appear to us.
That's just the problem -- how facts "appear to us" is pretty much by definition an opinion. So how do you square that with your desire for facts-based news?
For quality news, I've found that nothing beats print. I read the print edition of Aftenposten every weekday morning, and I subscribe to the print edition of my local newspaper as well. Print...
For quality news, I've found that nothing beats print. I read the print edition of Aftenposten every weekday morning, and I subscribe to the print edition of my local newspaper as well. Print newspapers actually have time to fact-check and do some proper reporting before publishing.
I honestly think you might be taking the wrong approach here. Every newspaper has some element of opinion and slant to their reporting, even the more centrist and/or objective ones, just by virtue of what they choose to report on and what they don't. IMO the better approach is not to try and narrow down your sources (although cutting out the obviously horribly biased ones helps) but to actually focus on improving your critical thinking skills regarding what you read.. which @Adys made a great comment on in a recent ~tildes topic:
I would also highly recommend watching one of Smarter Every Day's latest videos where he touches on the same topic and investigates what skills you need to develop to help identify fake news and misinformation:
Why Your Newsfeed SUCKS - Smarter Every Day 212
If you just want news, then I suggest a newswire from a press agency like AFP, Reuters or similar. This is the closest you'll ever get to completely neutral news coverage
https://www.reuters.com/theWire
https://www.france24.com/en/livenews
https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub
As far as newspapers go, I usually look at DW.com, The Guardian, BBC, El Pais, France24, Mail & Guardian and AllAfrica.com most days. I also occasionally look at some US publications like NYT or LA Times.
https://allafrica.com/
https://mg.co.za/
https://elpais.com/elpais/inenglish.html
https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097
People reading this post might also be interested in these previous discussions:
What are your most trusted news sources and why?
Quality news sources
How do you get your news?
Which country or region or sociocultural / socioeconomical community? What language(s)? It is really annoying when there are implied default answers to these like Anglosphere / the US & English.
Anyhow. I like Guardian quite a bit for international news in English. I also follow Internazionale.it, in Italian. I also follow a few NYT columns, the Interpreter is the news related one. For Turkish news, I follow Evrensel, Diken and Deutsche Welle's Turkish service. In Portuguese, Publico.pt seems to be nice, I'm using their international news to learn European Portuguese and I'm only a beginner ATM, so I can't tell for sure.
I'm quite envious of polyglots; I can just about stagger through Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel in the original language, but other untranslated sources are lost to me.
Do you find there's a significant difference between the content or slant of sources you can read natively, and their English-language editions?
TBH I've never compared. But I can say websites like Hurriyet Daily News and Daily Sabah, which are English versions of Turkish newspapers Hurriyet and Sabah respectively, both pro-govt (subordinated to the AKP actually), feel like they are created and maintained as a PR thingy for the country, and do not reflect the facts as they are in the country, but polish or hide them. If I was to advice an Anglophone who wants to follow Turkish media, I'd heavily suggest comparing these outlets with the output of Al-Jazeera, Reuters, Guardian, NYTimes, and even Sputnik (whose Turkish version is seemingly pro-opposition), or even just ignoring them. More honest outlets have occasional English content, but I haven't read them and they are not really frequent enough.
BBC's and DW's Turkish service seems to be rather neutral, but with DW rather pro-opposition, and none pro-govt. I haven't read much of BBC's English covering of Turkey facts, and I don't know German beyond the very beginner stuff so I can't follow DW in German.
I can't comment on Italian/Portuguese outlets because I haven't read English coverage from them. I've read a few articles about Turkey on Internazionale.it which were translated from English tho, and they were good.
So that was a wordy way to respond "Yes-ish." Sorry :P
Thank you - I suppose I should open up the question to other multi-lingual news readers as well, but you're a uniquely qualified source on language and reside outside the common sphere of Anglo/Euro influence here.
You're welcome, and thanks! There are quite some folks here from various places of Europe and Brazil I've encountered, and even a couple other folks from Turkey; so a question like that would probably get some nice answers (tho I avoid ~news and news discussion online in general, so IDK what the weather is like over yonder).
Any of the major newspapers should be fine. I personally like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer (among others). Here's a graphic that should help you visualize the perceived biases.
From MarketWatch (but a pretty common graphic...not sure why they watermarked it):
https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2018/02/28/Photos/NS/MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg?uuid=659e15a6-1ca8-11e8-83b2-9c8e992d421e
Note that this includes various types of media, not just newspapers.
honestly, the ubiquity of this chart irritates me because it's so... utterly subjective, one dimensional, and just kinda silly if you actually analyze it in any way. how do you quantify, in a particularly objective capacity, the partisan lean of a news outlet aside from basically eyeballing it, for example? and why is everything liberal-conservative, but then places like jacobin which literally aren't either of those included (jacobin is a socialist publication, not a liberal one). what constitutes "complex" or "original" analysis, and why does original analysis trump complex analysis necessarily? what makes democracy now a more complex source than say, vox? what makes buzzfeed news a more left-wing source than MSNBC? why does this chart treat local news as universally the same, when the quality of local newspapers is massively variant and usually greatly limited depending on the resources of the area? the denver post for example probably isn't of the same quality as like, the fucking tallahassee democrat or whatever.
i really don't think any of these "media bias" charts get it right, because the fact of the matter is you just can't boil down information like that in a way that's especially meaningful. you can't just say all fox news reporting is shitty and wrong because fox news is an inherently partisan source, nor can you say that every person's hot take on dailykos or MSNBC is wrong because it isn't a complex analysis or because those people have inherent agendas behind their words. you can caution people, sure, and maybe in general people should use the washington post as a source over like, vox or some shit--but that's not always a given, and it's not always that simple, and i wish people would stop treating it like it is or like you should just dismiss certain sources out of hand because they are partisan or biased because sometimes those places do get it right. that's not to say you even need to balance your media diet either. i couldn't care less if all you do is read "liberal" sources or "conservative ones--but i think in general, you need to be able to critically think about how a source reports something and accept it or reject it based on that over just outright dismissing a source because of the way it falls, and thus these charts always end up leading people in the wrong direction because that's something literally none of them can ever hope to account for.
They have a methodology report that may answer some of your questions.
I do think it's hard to distill these things into a two-dimensional chart, though.
all i can say is wow, that methodology (and the updated chart) is entirely subjective and basically has no objective backing whatsoever. it's literally just whatever the fuck their interpreters make of it, even if that interpretation is way off the fucking mark (like jacobin, which they have to shoehorn into the "liberal" column and which is somehow only barely to the left of daily kos because their chart fails to account for any sort of actual leftist ideology). i honestly think i've seen reddit posts with more rigorous standards than that methodology.
It's literally not either of those things... unless you also classify the industry standard fact-checking methodology of Poynter institute, Politifact and WaPo to have "no objective backing whatsoever" as well, since they are who Ad Fontes uses for their qualitative analysis.
-Source
We get it, their 2-dimensional Liberal-Conservative scale is not as nuanced as you would like, and you dislike it as well as jacobin's placement on it... but can you cut the hyperbole out please?
fact-checking isn't media bias, so their whole shtick as fact-checkers outside of their chart isn't really relevant to my overall point that "media bias" charts as a whole are stupid and unhelpful for discussions like this because they can't capture nuances like how bad sources can put out good reporting, or how just because a source has a slant or bias does not condemn all its reporting to being junk. actually, you're literally demonstrating my point in this thread: they can be good at one thing (fact-checking) and way the fuck off base in another (their "media bias" chart).
Nobody said they can't.
Nobody is saying that either. You are building straw man after straw man and attacking them.
the notorious strawman of... literally what the chart says...? like, the axes of the chart characterize fox news as "nonsense damaging to the public discourse" and "propaganda" and huffington post as "unfairly characterizing the news" and "selective and incomplete story; unfair persuasion". are you genuinely about to argue that their characterization of these sources, for example, doesn't at the literal minimum imply that they're bad sources or that, alternatively, most or all of their reporting is junk?
Just because a source often contains misleading information or unfairly characterizes the news, does not mean none of their reporting is worth heeding or you should outright dismiss them. Yes, they are generally a bad source and you should be more wary and extra-critical of their reporting, but that doesn't mean they can't have good articles as well. Buzzfeed News is a perfect example of this and I have even defended them in the past despite their shortcomings in that regard.
And I also don't think their including Fox news in the "propaganda/damaging to public discourse" rectangle is an unfair characterization, nor is their assessment of Huffington post either. Both still occasionally have good articles, similar to Daily Mail (who I have also defended) but people should also be made aware of their slant and history when it comes to factual reporting when reading them.
you're basically agreeing with my argument in all of this, then, because i pretty much said as much in the post that sparked this chain:
Yes, I did mostly agree with that. But I didn't reply to your first comment... I replied to your (IMO) hyperbolic attack on their methodology and subsequent straw man argument.
p.s. I think these media bias charts do have their place and are still valuable resources though, unlike you (I suspect).
This is a really cool chart. I agree with where they've placed everything that I've read before. Thanks for posting it!
The New York Times is not liberal. It's neoconservative.
how in the world do you even categorize a publication like the atlantic on a single-axis political spectrum, anyways? the atlantic has been a thing for like, 150 years and its whole purpose has changed drastically over the course of its existence (and is still changing). i'm not even sure you can really peg it, politically, because its politics change from day to day and month to month.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I like the NYTimes and NPR for American news. When I think of it I read Al Jazeera for international (non-American) news, but I don't read it much. I've heard they're quite good though. I feel like a good news diet would also include a local paper, so that'll depend on where you live.
Honestly, as far as "fake news" goes, I agree with @cfabbro that the really important thing is to read everything you read critically -- just because it's news doesn't mean it's the Gospel Truth; in fact, even fact-based reporting can change due to new facts coming to the surface as the story develops. Look at the news as a way to know what's going on -- and form your own opinions.
EDIT to respond to something you said (emphasis mine):
That's just the problem -- how facts "appear to us" is pretty much by definition an opinion. So how do you square that with your desire for facts-based news?
They're all biased in different ways, but I find The Guardian to be ok.
I read the print newspaper of the Boston Globe 1-2x a week, then for my daily news I read BBC News: US & Canada
For quality news, I've found that nothing beats print. I read the print edition of Aftenposten every weekday morning, and I subscribe to the print edition of my local newspaper as well. Print newspapers actually have time to fact-check and do some proper reporting before publishing.