World PoliticsSocial IssuesEconomyMilitaryUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

10+ Independent Online News Sources and Why America Needs More of Them

Updated on February 17, 2017

The fact that most major news outlets are controlled by a handful of massive, powerful companies, an aberration called media consolidation, is becoming of growing concern in America. It is vitally important that the citizens of this country become more skeptical of the news that is being fed to them by these huge corporate media outlets and find alternative means of learning about what is actually happening in this country and around the world. What they find might be rather shocking in its contradiction to what they are spoon fed on a daily basis.

December 5, 2011 / Vol. 178, No. 22
December 5, 2011 / Vol. 178, No. 22 | Source

There was a time when the nightly news was synonymous with the words objective, impartial, fair and balanced. Reporters and newscasters saw it as their duty and badge of honor to inform the public, as factually as possible, of the happenings in this country and around the world. Today, instead of journalists such as Walter Cronkite, a legend in his own right who brought the scandals of Watergate and the Vietnam War to the American people unfiltered, we have the major media outlets and their Talking Heads blindly supporting “facts” as told to them by the government, corporations and anyone else they deem worthy. Unfortunately, as the Iraq war has taught us, perceived truths are not always the facts and thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a consequence. It is extremely disturbing that the mainstream media’s abject failure to do its job and the public's abject failure to demand that they do so could result in a "mistake" of such magnitude.

It may look like a lot of different newspapers, but it's all the same story.
It may look like a lot of different newspapers, but it's all the same story. | Source

► What the Big Six Really Own

Each of the Big Six own an array of media venues, from TV and radio stations to newspapers and magazines to film and production studios. To gain a better understanding of the breadth of their reach, both freepress and the Colombia Journalism Review have composed fairly up-to-date listings of the companies under their ownership.

The Media’s Big Six

In 1983, 90% of our media was owned and controlled by 50 different companies. Today, 90% of our news (whether we read, watch, or listen to it) is dominated by six media giants:

  • Comcast
  • News Corporation
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • Viacom
  • Time Warner
  • CBS Corporation

The merging of so many media companies into today’s handful of powerhouses has been allowed, and some may say encouraged, by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent government agency composed of five people whose duty it is to determine media policy and law. Created in 1934 by the Communications Act, the FCC’s role is to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable throughout the United States. Critics say it hasn’t done a very good job, and the proof is the existence of the Big Six.

Why should Americans be worried that only a small number of companies control so much of our media? Because with the Big Six’s enormous control over a wide spectrum of the media, from production companies to radio to television, comes the ability to dictate what events they see as newsworthy (or not) on a massive scale. News is no longer a public service meant to communicate facts but a means for these companies to make profits from entertaining viewers. The importance of a news event is determined by ratings not by what is considered to be in the public's best interest.

Do you rely solely on the mainstream media for your news or do you read, view and listen to a variety of sources to get your news?

See results

Independent News Options: Really Keeping It Real

A poll done by the Pew Research Center, in September of 2011, found that, “Fully 66% (of the public) say news stories often are inaccurate, 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations.” A more recent Gallup poll, taken in September of 2015, showed that 60% of Americans still do not trust the mass media to deliver the news fully, accurately and fairly.

These numbers are not so much a bleak outlook but evidence that the public is finally beginning to realize that the mainstream media cannot be trusted – a good thing and perhaps a catalyst for change. Americans need to understand what is really happening in our country and the rest of the world by reading, watching and listening to a variety of news sources, not only the mainstream media. Many times a foreign newspaper or news program will reflect a completely different perspective on the way a story in this country is portrayed.

Thankfully, there are a growing number of independent news sources available to anyone with access to the internet. The following are only a sampling of the alternatives to the Big Six but most state that they are “non-partisan, independent and non-profit.” Some are more transparent than others; a couple go so far as to outline a code of journalistic ethics their company follows.

► Is your news answering the following?

  • Who?
  • What?
  • When?
  • Where?
  • Why?
  • How?

Good news sources abide by a code of ethics. Does your news include the following?

  • Accuracy
  • Fairness
  • Completeness
  • Honesty
  • Independence
  • Impartiality
  • Transparency
  • Accountability
  • Respect
  • Excellence

Still having trouble separating the fact from the fiction? Here are six questions that will tell you what media to trust.

General News Sources

Foreign News Sources

Sites That Report on Censorship

While most of the following sources do provide some general news, their primary roles are to monitor censorship and the restriction of information on specific topics.




Documentaries on the Subject:

  • #killswitch (2014)
  • Shadows of Liberty (2012)
  • John Pilger: Real Journalism (2012)
  • WikiRebels: The Documentary (2010)
  • Barbershop Punk (2010)
  • Orwell Rolls in His Grave (2003)
  • Project Censored: Is the Press Really Free? (1998)

Independent Reporters and Whistleblowers

The following sources fall into categories unto their own. The first list is a group of fiercely independent reporters who believe in old school journalism with their own websites and articles; the second includes several sites that encourage whistleblowers and print the information they receive.

Independent Reporters:


Help Improve the Media

If you would like more information about improving the media or would like to help reform our mainstream news, the following websites will show you where to begin:

Be a Real News Advocate

Americans need to become aware of news sources other than the mainstream media. It is essential that the public question the validity of their news. With only a tiny number of companies controlling what the vast majority of us see, hear, and read, it is critical that the public realize that there are alternatives. It is not only an important part of being an informed and engaged citizen, it is critical to our nation remaining a democracy.

Author's Note:

All these sources claim that they do not accept government, political, or corporate funding and that their missions are to seek the truth and provide real news versus the entertainment mass media outlets spew to maintain viewer ratings. But this does not eliminate bias. At the end of the day, it is human beings, with all their shortcomings, creating the final product. So it is up to every reader/listener to question their news and its sources. Being aware that the mainstream media is mostly propaganda is a good starting point. The difficult part is finding the truth.

© 2012 Gemini Fox

Can you recommend any other news sources to add to this list? Please comment!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Jeanette Herrera 2 weeks ago

      I read a reporter/journalist, named Ryan Grim. He recently left his online paper to start his own. I believe him to be truthful, fair and balanced. He is interesting and also has a slight flair of making you smile when appropriate. He has links on all his articles. The ones I have read are ones that take me to the Interecpt, who he also writes for, as well as another person who I believe to be an impeccable person of great talent and honesty, Jeremy Scahill. I have read and enjoyed his books considering the topics.

      I believe both of these gentlemen should be on your list for Independent Reporters. Thank you

    • profile image

      Kevin 6 weeks ago

      Many of these are political opinion sites. I wanted sites that provide facts and facts only. It's too easy to go through these lists and find sites that confirm our individual biases.

      I'm glad to have a list of sites to sift through, but it it is irresponsible to promote some of these third rate news organizations.

    • profile image

      Richard Ostergadr 2 months ago

      Isn't it interesting that Drudge Report is not even mentioned?

    • profile image

      Dina Barzilai 2 months ago

      I appreciate the intent of this article and agree with checking sources, getting news from independent sources etc.

      However, although I won't comment on some of your less-biased sources listed--I have to comment on Al Jazeera. You did not do your homework.

      Not only do they accept government funding, they are basically OWNED by the Qatari government/Royal family. They are extremely biased on many issues--I could go on but everyone can research it themselves. The Royal arm of the Qatari government is NOT imdependent, nor objective and relatively unbiased.

    • Fullerman5000 profile image

      Ryan Fuller 4 months ago from Louisiana, USA

      So many great views in this article. It is crazy how the media can be so manipulative, especially to these younger generations who want to quickly believe what they hear. Great work on this article.

    • Angel Guzman profile image

      Angel Guzman 4 months ago from Joliet, Illinois

      An independent press is priceless and important to democracy! Great read.

    • profile image

      Sherri Grotts 5 months ago

      Gemini Fox, I happened upon this article when I googled unbiased news websites. This article you wrote is really good, and I'm going to share this on my Facebook. I wrote a few of the websites down, and I'm going to give them a try!

    • profile image

      bob79 5 months ago

      Funny how the real news that comes out here is not listed and the person writing this does not list real news here besides their ones they think are true! not saying some are true news but there are others that report 98% cent true with others being mocked that manyv cal conspitacy and that is what comes true! I feel this report is only partially true as some are part of the giant news corporations.

    • profile image

      Marbunster@AOL.COM 6 months ago


      Also I find Cnn un- American and almost traitorists. They spew their lies worldwide and turn others against America.

      The BBC is on the same level. It is my home country and I am sad to find them so unethical.

      Truth and reliable sources are no longer needed in Journalism. Anything poisonous against Trump with no sources will be covered as fact.

    • profile image

      Amanda 7 months ago

      Thanks so much for this list! I found it quite useful as an international relations student. Most mainstream media harps on about the same topics and I was looking for more variety and different perspectives. I especially love newsbud and the intercept. I even bookmarked some of those new sites, including this page. :)

    • profile image

      Larry 7 months ago

      Just visited 5 of the 10 links provided. ALL 5 do nothing more than promote democrat ideals and trash conservative ones.

      This article promotes only the left.

      I sure would like to find a new source that is balanced.

    • profile image

      EdwardLane 8 months ago

      Excellent and significant article about maybe the most important issue in America today.

    • profile image

      Oliver McCann 8 months ago

      The BBC ought not be cited as a reliable source because it is partly Government funded. Furthermore its coverage of Middle East affairs is far from unbiased. However I write from an Irish/European perspective which appears quite different from the American experience. The Washington Post and the NYT are my preferences.

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 9 months ago from Florida

      Today's free speech news sources are you and I... the internet, and all that is on it... Hubpages, YouTube, the ability to Email others and get answers directly from the source.

      MSM is little more than propaganda, corporate, or political, repeaters as you say, not reporters. Today's newspapers and news channels are dinosaurs, they are already extinct they just don't know it yet.

    • profile image

      Tina 9 months ago

      This is fantastic, thank you for sharing!

    • profile image

      Tom Richardson 9 months ago

      Having been part of a JOA ( joint operating agreement) in Detroit, Michigan, I can say for sure that it was a con job perpetrated by Ronald Reagan and Edwin Meese. The figures involved ( ABCs....audit bureau of circulation) were phone figures and had been for years. Now, as in most large cities, there is one newspaper in Detroit.....oh sure, two coin op machines, side by side, but in reality, it is one newspaper.

    • profile image

      Truth B. Told 9 months ago

      These are very refreshing choices if you want the same crap your already being fed being served to you in a trojan horse.

    • profile image

      Larry 9 months ago

      This is my first encounter with this site and am already loving it. Hope I can get by more often from now

    • profile image

      Hello 9 months ago


    • profile image

      cha 9 months ago

      This looked like a good site for me to find a recommended news site that isn't biased. Wrong! It took about 3-5 min. each on the 10 independent sites listed to see that they ALL are slanted in 1 direction or another. "Independent" obviously does not mean un-biased. Sad.

    • profile image

      Gingee 9 months ago

      Thank you for the information! I did not feel any bias.

    • profile image

      Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! 9 months ago

      This is one of most needed articles I've read recently. Thank you Gemini Fox for your research, accuracy and unbiased approach in explaining what is really going on with journalism today. This is a message that nobody will hear in mass media...yet it needs to be heard and understood in spades. I shared it with all my FB friends.

    • profile image

      rsholl 9 months ago is an excellent comparative media source - one to watch

    • profile image

      NFS247 10 months ago

      This is the best thing I have read in a long time - very important and truthful info here. THANK YOU! I will be sharing this :)

    • profile image

      Bob 10 months ago needs removed from the 'non-partisan' list. They are far from non-partisan.

    • Gemini Fox profile image

      Gemini Fox 10 months ago

      Many thanks to all who have alerted me to needed corrections.

      Many thanks, also, to those of you who stepped up to the plate and offered additional sources. If they have not been incorporated into the list it’s because they openly stated they favored either the left or the right (the documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad”) or were ‘for-profit’ or family owned (One America News Network). The sources here were specifically chosen because their websites state that they are non-profit and/or independent from their financial support. Some even outline their code of ethics (which may or may not mean much); some are transparent with their funding. This does not eliminate bias but hopefully does allow a source more freedom to disperse the real facts – and address subjects the MSM won’t even touch, something that is desperately needed.

      To those who have commented that one source or another is biased:

      1. Please read my Author’s Note. Then reread it. And then reread it as many times as it takes for the meaning to sink in . . .

      2. I find it infinitely amusing that those who scream about sources being biased can never seem to come up with one they consider to be unbiased. Please return with a source. I assure you I will find someone in less than 5 who says that, in their opinion, it’s biased. If this is hard for you to comprehend, reread #1.

      3. Why exactly did you assume a source is biased? Because it doesn’t align with what you believe? Did you bother to research the facts? What if what you’re reading is actually the facts and it is you who is biased? Perhaps it is that you are part of the much too large portion of the populace who simply will not acknowledge facts that do not align with their preconceived notions. No way for me to help you with your detachment from reality.

      4. If you have an open mind and understand the meaning of critical thought, you will give a source a chance. Did you read just one article (or simply a headline) and make your decision the source was biased? Maybe you read the writings of the one person in the organization (out of perhaps many) who wrote on that particular topic with what you consider to be a biased slant, but that doesn’t mean the entire source is biased.

      5. Perhaps most importantly: reading many sources of news, whether you consider them biased or not, is sometimes the only way to find a glimmer of the truth. No one source is going to spoon-feed you reality. I’ve always considered Fox News to be the lowest denominator when it comes to journalism, if it can even be called that. But during the 2016 election, they were one of the first to call Hillary on her corruption, later corroborated by Wikileaks – while CNN and the Washington Post derided Bernie and defended her until it was impossible to do so without looking idiotic. This also applies to foreign news sources. Yes, they may be biased - or they may be a factual look at American issues the media in this country refuse to address - or purposely black out. Sometimes if you know a news source has an agenda, use it. It’s in their best interest to dig for dirt on that topic – as in apply real journalism.

      Finally, I would like to point out that I have no ‘skin in the game’ here. This isn’t about playing favorites. I’m not being paid in any way by any of these sources. It is very, very hard to find out what is actually happening in our world today and the powers-that-be certainly want to keep it that way. Journalists were once (a long time ago) the front line for keeping the establishment’s corruption somewhat at bay – now, when they’re not actually in the establishment’s pocket, they’re being jailed for outing the truth. THINK about that. And then think about how the MSM covered the 2016 election, how the MSM literally helped Trump win the election, how Trump is now threatening the MSM if they don’t pander to him and perhaps, worst of all, how most of the MSM is kowtowing to his tantrums in fear he may otherwise not allow them access. This should be scaring the crap out every American who believes in democracy . . . not that we have one any longer. The catastrophe of the Iraq war and now the election of someone who could potentially morph into a dictator, both occurring because our media is so utterly corrupt it no longer bothers to do its job, should make the monumental importance of real journalism’s role in a truly free society crystal clear to all those who aren’t in a coma.

      Thank you for reading and please don’t stop your search.

    • profile image

      Gale 10 months ago

      I am constantly looking for alternatives to the mainstream media and this article provides a great deal of information in that direction. I am so disappointed in both the left and right controlling the public with the media. I just want the truth so I can make an informed decision. But one statement I continue to make to my friends is to stop talking and start acting, get involved with both writing your representatives and actions. The final statement in this article is pure truth and everyone should take to heart.

    • profile image

      DesertRat 10 months ago

      We all need to be what Ben Franklin envisioned, and for a time realized - citizen journalists, publishing papers on every corner.

    • profile image

      alwm 10 months ago

      The article I liked and found informative. However, Freepress( which is listed as 1 of the 2 websites at the bottom as to how to improve the media and where to start) Appeared to me at nothing more that a TMZ of politics- Which is the very reason I came to your website . I feel frustrated and helpless that so many people are; and Ill go as far as to say- subliminally molded into being and thinking what the media/ government/ whoever wants us to believe- So when I open link to FreePress and all i see is "Jeff Sessions is a racist!" , i can hardly rely on them to be credible , correct, and very least , unbiased. Which completely undermines your article- which was a breath of fresh air until that link- just wanted you to know. I feel that many people will be seeking information as to what they can do to try to show media we NEED truth, not their version of it. And that website reinforced what we already knew

    • profile image

      Kanik 11 months ago

      Try Adractive app. provides news with different views to keep it unbiased. also provides a short history / background

    • profile image

      haba baba 11 months ago

      I agree to some degree, makes sense

    • profile image

      wasntme 11 months ago

      You must be kidding. al jezeera and the bbc?

    • Howard Stapleton profile image

      Howard Stapleton 11 months ago

      What America truly needs: teaching and learning critical thinking and reasoning at a younger age and continuing that education throughout college/university level. Since every human has and demonstrates bias, the best way I've found to have a better likelihood at arriving at what's mostly accurate and true is to get one's news from a variety of news sources - domestic, foreign, left, right, center, and to use critical thinking to question all that is gleaned and processed. It's an arduous task at first, but becomes easier once a plan is put into place and practiced. ie. Using an RSS reader or new aggregator site allows you to select various sources and read them all in one location.

      Studies have revealed these base positions in major media:

    • profile image

      Betty 11 months ago

      RT and must be kidding me!

    • profile image

      Karen 11 months ago

      I think most of these sources have a leftist bent. Perhaps they were different 4 years ago. But now I find it difficult to find an outlet for the news, not a reporter's opinion.

    • profile image

      H----S 11 months ago

      I don't think the author said these were neutral - just independent and generally trustworthy ... though RT and Sputnik definitely don't fit that description!

      It's a good start and it would be nice of all the folks yelling "that's biased!" would suggest their alternatives for findng non-fake news, when possible from independent sources.

      As Americans we get our in-country news mostly from one of the big 6 - so anything truthful from another source is a good option for us to consider in our news pile. I want to know what RT is saying, but I want to know that it's propaganda, just like other state-owned news sources. Knowing what they ar saying is different from believing everything they say. So VOA, UK and German sources, etc - valuable if you have the right goggles on!

    • profile image

      Adrienne 11 months ago

      The Young Turks

    • profile image

      Carol Ramirez 11 months ago

      I do not see on your list. It was my understanding that they were a good source of real news. No?

    • profile image

      Genealogy Nut 11 months ago

      Genealogy with out documentation is called Mythology! All of the major news media sources are giving us Mythology every day. Please boycott these dishonest organizations. It is all about money for them. They don't care about us! They will not change, until we force them by not listening to them any more! I am saying goodbye to all major news companies.

    • profile image

      Jim 11 months ago

      I can get more factual information from my local High School newspaper then the so called professional media.

    • profile image

      Caitiesnanny 11 months ago

      It would be a cold day in hell when I go to Al Jazeera for any news.

    • profile image

      dbmarsh 11 months ago

      Thanks for the information. I'm just starting to look into better ways to get my news. Truthfully I have avoided all news for many years due to various grievances with the way it is presented. Hopefully I will be refreshed by some of the alternatives. Again, thanks!

    • profile image

      j. fay 12 months ago

      CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX and MSNBC have just given up their rights to free speech. They've allowed trump to tell them all to shut up. None of them have broken their non disclosure agreements and none of them walked out of them, like a real reporter would do. I'm looking for trust worthy outlets hoping to see these cowards replaced as sources.

    • notlurking profile image

      notlurking 12 months ago

      The new sources are labeled independent by the author........that has my radar blinking red......independent my ass......just look at who the big ones endorsed in this bizarre tell me how independent is

    • profile image

      HB 12 months ago

      Sorry, but none of these sites are unbiased . Scanned through them all and found them to be mostly left leaning with liberal/left opinion pieces. These sites are no better then right leaning ones. Very difficult to find a balanced news source out there that shares facts and allows the readers to decide for themselves.

    • profile image

      Bob in NJ 12 months ago

      Not sure why Gemini Fox has allowed this to carry on so long without remaining an active participant in the discussion. But while I won't attempt to speak on her behalf, I WILL say that the basis for this post remains relevant.

      The most important thing that EVERYONE needs to realize first & foremost is that MOST media sources now have some bias or viewpoint. It's the end-product of the "24-hour news cycle" and the consolidation of our media. It's now more about ratings... and filling air time... and even sensationalism, than it is about pure reporting. Running down leads, double- and triple-checking facts & sources BEFORE commenting, and real investigative reporting takes time; and while the payoff can be sensational, the process is more likely to be "boring" and time-consuming (read: not "good TV").

      It is incumbent upon us, as American citizens, to do our own due diligence. Yes, the list that was originally compiled--and since added to--here is flawed. But that's the challenge. We need to be willing to put in the work- to research, read and evaluate information from MULTIPLE sources and viewpoints, to try to read between the lines & find Truth. We've gotten lazy, folks- we want our snippets & soundbytes so we can feel "informed" in a hurry, and move on to our reality TV and NetFlix while still feeling good about ourselves.

      So stop debating the individual links here. Just use them as a starting point, come to your own conclusions about them, and if they don't strike you as "unbiased", then dig around and find some yourselves! Then you can post your OWN list in your OWN blog for others to use as a new benchmark. :-)

    • profile image

      George 12 months ago

      @Steven: I wonder about that "liberal bias" thing. At the moment you live in a mostly liberal environment (like, half of the US, or whole Austria) it's obviously almost impossible to be absolutely non-biased, since you would need to deny the content of most news you actually read, even if their argumentation seems logical and is backed by trustworthy sources. Of course journalists, which live in liberal environments, will statistically get more into contact with other people which share liberal values at least to a certain extent.

      This is no actively made "bias" which alters the quality of the media in any way. Instead of banishing news outlets like reuters, you could just add an explicitely illiberal news outlet into your mix. Of course you need to think about every text you read, if it's written to convince you of illiberal or liberal values, or not.

      There is a huge difference between the 'bias" of reuters and, say, the "bias" of sputnik. Sputnik (and RT) are websites controlled by the russian government, and an active part of their communication strategy. These news outlets put a further meaning into every news they publish. These news are really biased towards pre-defined (russian governmental) values.

      Because of that, I cant understand why RT and Sputnik are part of that list.

      Of course you could argue, that every govt-led website is somehow "biased". If not, why are there only UK and Russian govt news outlets listed? What about France24 or DW (Deutsche Welle, German website)?

      Many (democratic) countries have govt-controlled news outlets which are known for their journalistic quality being on par with better news sites and NGO news projects. No reason to stay away from them if you would even read something like RT.

    • profile image

      Steven 12 months ago

      1. The Real News Network ( Severe Liberal Bias

      2. The Christian Science Monitor ( Slight Conservative Bias

      3. Truthout ( Severe Liberal Bias

      4. Reuters ( Slight Liberal Bias

      5. The Nation ( Severe Liberal Bias

      6. ProPublica ( Mostly Conspiracy Related Content.

      7. The Center for Public Integrity ( Appears to be Unbias

      8. Reveal (The Center for Investigative Reporting) ( Unbias but also appears to have some conspiracy related content.

      9. AllSides ( Appears to be Unbias but contains news sources from Mainstream media like New York Times and CNN who have been know to post fake news and have Severe Bias.

      10. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) ( Severe Liberal Bias and Post Fake News

      11. Who, What, Why ( Severe Liberal Bias

      12. WorldNews (WN) Network ( Slight Liberal Bias and Foreign News Source

      13. Sputnik ( Government Bias, Foreign(Russia) and Conspiracy.

      14. Appears Unbias but appears to take a hands off approach political sensitive topics.

    • profile image

      Tiff 12 months ago

      Listen up, I've seen a ton of comments stating this is bias and this isnt. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's bias or non-bias. There are some legitimate, all sided news sources out there. But just because you may not agree with it, doesn't technically mean it's bias.

    • profile image

      Stéphane 12 months ago

      Sputnik and RT as non partisant ? Are you serious ? These are propaganda arms of Russia !

    • profile image

      Teacher MARK 12 months ago

      British: BBC News (

      British: The Guardian (

      That's hilarious... They are proud left wing liberal news outlets.

      Nobody in the world would seriously take the view that these places are neutral or independent.

      Did Lena Dunham compile this list! Ha ha!

    • Derek Tang profile image

      Derek Tang 12 months ago

      RT and Sputnik are owned by the Russian government. Sputnik was the source of the fake Wikileaks document that Trump used during the campaign - the first major sign that Russia was attempting to tamper with the election. There is no way either of those can be credibly included on this list.

      Also, The Nation and Truthout identify themselves as providing progressive op-eds. Likewise, CSMonitor does lean right.

      This is all a good start, though.

    • profile image

      NeedNews 12 months ago

      Sorry, but is liberal. Go look at it.

    • profile image

      RealityAndUnderstanding 12 months ago

      After months and months of watching all those chuckle heads on mainstream news each night and following those grossly onaccurate polls, I feel like I've been watching some sort of reality show where the American electorate is the punchline. I was not one of those people who thought Hilary had it in the bag but it wasn't even close. I no longer watch high-paid, out of touch anchors -- why waste my time. I want to know what my fellow American thinks and deals without the filter of the no-nothing news. The list here has offered some good options to try out for additional perspective. I'm also working on keeping an open mind when it comes to the opinion and character of others.

    • profile image

      QuestForTruth 12 months ago

      I'm 26 years old and I'm sad to confess a few truths. Over the last few days, following the announcement of the Presidential Elect, I had become depressed and unmotivated. I'm always on the go as a senior in college, so Facebook and CNN are ways that I can quickly stay updated on what's going on in our country and sometimes around the world. Sad, I know. There was an overwhelming amount of news released and I didn't know WHAT to believe. After noticing my change in mood, I decided to cleanse my home (smudging and meditating) and told myself that I'm going to disconnect from social media for the weekend (hopefully I'll last longer.) Well, it's been 2 days and I feel unbelieveably good. I've found my motivation again and I'm not harboring the feelings of those that are being attacked based on their perceived ethnicity and who they support politically. It's so weird how amazing social media can be but it's also saddening how much damage it has the power to cause. I'm grateful for this article. I had no idea of the Big Six or the FCC (mind blowing.) I've gone and subscribed to ALL of the ethical news sources you posted. Thanks again.

    • profile image

      DB 12 months ago

      All news is corrupt and biased now.

    • profile image

      rho 12 months ago

      These might have been unbiased news 4 years ago, but no longer.

    • notlurking profile image

      notlurking 13 months ago

      I agree with others that many of the sites are strongly biased......but not left or right....many are biased to corporatism and neoliberalism.....does not matter if you are democrat or republican both are beholden to corporations......both are one side of the same coin......and btw has anybody noticed Ms Fox has not blogged in some time........mmmm

    • profile image

      Beechnut 13 months ago

      I saw reuters and stopped reading. Nuff said

    • profile image

      hmmm 13 months ago

      you have to be kidding. most if not all these news outlets are socialistic/progressive and can not be trusted!

    • profile image

      L. 13 months ago

      Propublica is also funded by Open Society. For more info as to how deep the rabbit hole goes, see this article:

      Yes, it's hosted by Fox, but that doesn't make the info any less real.

    • profile image

      L. 13 months ago

      Real News Network is supported by Open Society Foundations, aka George Soros. RNN is even hosting a summit for them on the 22nd of this month. (October, 16) Soros also made a mega donation to PBS which makes them suspect. Dig deep when looking for an unbiased, bipartisan news site because sometimes these connections are buried.

    • profile image

      Unconvinced 13 months ago

      Apparently there are no unbiased news sources these days.

    • profile image

      ANON 13 months ago

      RT is literally owned and operated by the Russian government. Don't know how you got past that one...

    • profile image

      Someone 13 months ago

      Well, I got through 11 of the links... terrible biased garbage for the most part. Really, what is even the point in listing these sites. The MSM is already incredibly left-biased. Why one earth does anyone need more such sites? You wasted 15 minutes of my time...

    • profile image

      John Connor 13 months ago

      Jews are 2.5% of the population. Rather than ask the question you might expect - what I want to askis WHY we all accept being forbidden from discussing what is pervasive, massive, and arguably coordinated and planned domination of news media by Jews? Again - good and bad in allgroups, but what its a out is a cohesive, ethnocentric 2.5% with areligion based on moral chauvinism. See Deuteronomy chapter 7. Antisemites did not write that - Jews did.

      And they control how we understand Palestine, Syria, Russia and the immivasion (kalergi plan) of Europe, long supportedby Jews like George Soros and Barbara Specter.


    • profile image

      Bilbo Baggins 14 months ago

      sputniknews is owned by the Russian state. Tough to get unbiased when it's owned by the government...

    • profile image

      Big Fish 14 months ago

      Wow, the first link ( has nothing but anti-Trump info on the page! The articles are full of adjectives and hype just like CNN. If that is objective reporting someone needs to go back to journalism school.

    • profile image

      maverickuv 14 months ago

      I do second the thoughts of Reese and Ruby. One site I know of which works on the same principle is

      Maybe there is no such one site or team which can provide a balanced news...but two sites work :)

    • profile image

      Kitty 14 months ago

      Democracy Now! should be on this list. Amy Goodman is one of the best journalists of our time.

    • profile image

      Richard 14 months ago


      YOU are citing the BBC as being NeuTRAL ?

      they themselves have cited themselves as LEFT WING ... that is the ONLY site I noted in my brief scan of sites recommended.. NO way ... thanks,,, maybe re visit and UPDATE this list ... thanks

    • profile image

      reuters is democrat 14 months ago

      This article has lost credibility. Reuters is unbiased ?? Ok, send me a link that is either anti Hillary or pro Trump

    • profile image

      Hasnain Ashraf 14 months ago

      Nice Article. I learn a lot from this nice article. I am a small article writer, love your work. hope you keep writing such a useful articles in future as well. Hope this article will help new comers and also improve the quality of work in US national news staff. Thank You

    • profile image

      Mark 14 months ago

      Big money is what keeps big news channels in demand so it naturally follows that those big money investors will always influence the news when it comes to politics..more so now than ever. The clinton just the tip of the iceberg. As an American I take what is going on in America when it comes to the so-called "democratic party" and it sickens me. Even JFK would back away from these folks. No wonder why Putin is interested..he would definitely like to see hillary in office. During the G20 summit obama as not even afforded a deplaning ramp, no red carpet. Even when he met with Mr. Putin it was just a stare down. Obama has no respect. at all from his own should he ask for it from any other nations..especially those who dislike us the most. Do you expect anything different from Hillary..if so then you are a fool at very best.

    • profile image

      Ryan P 14 months ago

      It's relatively new but The Unopinionated looks promising, name says it all!

    • profile image

      I Bonds 14 months ago

      Today we are seeing the electronic equivalent of the printed "journalism" of the 1800's, when anyone with access to a printing press could become a reporter. Then, as now, sensationalism took precedence over fact, bias was expected as normal, even desirable, and if you did not have a real story, you could create one out of thin air and there was no peer review to call it into question. Much of our recorded history of that era, particularly in regard to the happenings in the American west has actually been taken from the historical character based pulp paperbacks that were very popular at the time. As the craft matured and competition over the same stories forced those reporting the facts to do just that, journalism became more trustworthy. Bias did not disappear completely, but it was certainly less acceptable. Hopefully as internet based reporting comes of age, the same forces will create a new system of self policing that will result in more facts and less spin.

      It is interesting that you hold up Walter Cronkite as the shining beacon of fact and truth. Unfortunately it was Cronkite himself who shattered the glass wall between journalism and editorial activism in an on-air diatribe against the Vietnam war in one of his newscasts. While everyone should have the rights to hold and express their points of view, the highly respected Cronkite's failure to keep his views separate from the news he was trusted to report was an impetus to the explosion of yellow journalism we are currently forced to filter facts from.

    • profile image

      syprian harvey 15 months ago

      Many thanks for your article! Part of my decision process in choosing which news agency to read invariably involves the vocabulary used in the article. I try to apply a simple standard that has been outlined in S. I. Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action." One needs to know the difference among three orientations of the auuthor and/or news agency by asking: Is this article a REPORT, an INFERENCE, or a JUDGMENT?

      I look forward to visiting your site often.

    • profile image

      Jedmo 15 months ago

      The American media should worry, no one believes their propaganda anymore.

    • profile image

      WEndy 16 months ago is the same BS of the left wing media moguls and should not be on this list

    • profile image

      leighdasle 16 months ago

      the nation is like Fox

    • profile image

      Perspycacious 16 months ago

      All news sources are "natural". We get what comes, but I agree that too much comes with biased interpretations such as the Washington Post's determination to see Trump lose even if Hillary is left standing alone and with all the power of the presidency. For years Time and Newsweek have been party mouthpieces, and most newspapers have editors chosen for their political views. Those views too often determine which Letters To The Editor are chosen for print. The Web is a potential source but runs the gammut from informed to nonsense. The individual is left to their own devices and their educational level may well determine how well they can inform themselves. Try finding the truth. It is out there somewhere.

    • profile image

      John 16 months ago

      I like the concept of this article. But I find a lot of your choices are just offering more opinion - certainly more diverse opinions, but the content is largely opinion, not factual. As an example, - Sounds great, more research, Canadians maybe more level-headed and less self-absorbed than other nations, but what they serve up is 90% opinion. This is easier to write than to assemble data but really just increases the froth. Specific example: . Interesting opinions, sure.

      So I challenge you, Gemini, to develop a metric to express how much factual content sources provide - easier than trying to express bias or lack thereof.

      Don't get me wrong - I really laud this effort.

    • profile image

      Kindrake 16 months ago

      Truthout is extremely biased/liberal.

      I like one-america news. Its the only place I can go and see stories about the good and bad in both candidates. Refreshing!!!

    • profile image

      anon 17 months ago

      HBO's Last Week Tonight?

    • profile image

      Cassie230 17 months ago

      Wow - listened to the nation - if this is an example of unbiased reporting we are in deep trouble.

    • profile image

      Ruby 17 months ago

      I think is a very good article but also strongly believe that Reese has a great point and totally agree with, we should focus more on the good things instead of supporting all the horror stories that are being shown on the news which only brings more bad news, seems like we are getting used to waking up every morning to read/watch how many people got killed today, what city is going down, who is making the new war, just to mention a few.

      I am not saying is not good to know what is happening around us, but even if those sites are the more unbiased, they are still showing us what is selling "bad news".

      When there's a shooting (which sadly is happening more often) all the news focus on the shooter, and give us a full biography of that person; which usually last all week hearing or seeing every single detail about the shooter life. For the elections, we see every day all the bad things each candidate has to say about the other candidate and a little is said about what they actually are going to do for us, and that is what is selling. The list can go on.

      I do think is a good article and a good list of unbiased news, just wish we could stop supporting the bad news and start demanding a little more news of all the beautiful things that are happening around in our world.

    • sixguinness profile image

      sixguinness 17 months ago from New York and news services - unbiased? Huh?

    • profile image 17 months ago

      There was NEVER a`WHY` in true NEWs reporting.. That was on the `opinion` page.. Only `Who, What,When, Where and How!! 5 not 6 Lets get this correct!!

    • profile image

      Grace 17 months ago

      Unfortunately, we'll need to remove Arabic: Al Jazeera English U.S. ( from the list as they have been shut down as of end of April

    • profile image

      christina mcvaugh 18 months ago

      thanks so much for the lists. I'm getting ready to teach Current Events next year-- this should be a great help!

    • profile image

      Reese 19 months ago

      Sorry, but every suggested site is delivering the wrong message. First, most of them support specific paradigms of politics. That right there disqualifies them as being unbiased. They do so by either overt verbal support and/or by a preponderance of articles that focus in on one way of thinking.

      But more damaging to all of society is the general rhetoric and selection of stories to write about. Over 90% of the articles written focus in on issues of discrimination and discord; as if nothing else is of any significance in this world. You can't bring people together when you can do nothing other than argue and complain. If you want people to come together - making real sacrifice for the well-being of others - these news sites need to turn their attention to the good things people engage in and those stories that demonstrate man's ability to work together in common good.

      Sorry, these sites fail.

    • profile image

      Diana Cavanaugh 19 months ago

      Add--One America News Network.

    • profile image

      EW 20 months ago

      Hi Gemini,

      You should also post the new documentary "The Brainwashing of My Dad".

    • profile image

      Monica Neil 22 months ago

    • profile image

      AJ 22 months ago

      A lot of people I know call NPR National Pentagon Radio or National Propaganda Radio. They may do more in depth coverage on any particular news piece, but it cannot be trusted, particularly on issues of war and foreign policy. It should definitely not be on the list. At one time they were reliable, but that was a long time ago.

    • profile image

      Bill 22 months ago

      Hi Gemini -

      The ProPublica link goes to .ord -- should go to

      You can also add the below. All three have one major awards - pulitzer prizes, emmy awards amongst others, and are unbiased, nonprofit news organizations.

      The Center for Investigative Reporting -

      The Center for Public Integrity -

      InsideClimate News -

    • Gemini Fox profile image

      Gemini Fox 2 years ago

      rastus: thanks for commenting - but apparently you didn't read the entire article . . . such as my Author's Note at the end of it . . . or the part above the comment section where I ask for readers to add news sources they feel are unbiased. Your comment leads me to believe you might have a long list of unbiased news sources in mind, so feel free. I really am interested in hearing about them!

      With that said (once again), I will admit that part of whoucrappin’s comment is correct in regards to these news sources being “unbiased” . . . many of them are not. However, I have yet to find a commenter up to the above challenge.

      Depending on a person’s life experiences and viewpoints, it’s a good bet anyone can find bias in any news article – because, really, everyone is biased to some extent, whether they are aware of it or not. Case in point, you stated The Real News looked promising. If I were to update/revamp this hub, I would probably remove that source. I think they lean very much to the left. And I disagree that the CSMonitor is “definitely Right” – I’ve referenced articles by them which trashed oil pipelines, and you know how much the Right love their oil. Frankly, I don’t think there is such a creature as “unbiased news” – some sources are just better than others and the goal of this article is to list those sources.

      But to respond to your and whoucrappin’s legitimate gripe: “unbiased” . . . gone!

    • profile image

      rastus 2 years ago

      Real News and Truthout look promising, but I have to agree with whoucrappin about NPR and PBS. Those organizations, along with The Nation, are ridiculously biased to the Left. CSMonitor is definitely Right. I'll standby for a defensive Gemini Fox attack. ;-)

    • Gemini Fox profile image

      Gemini Fox 3 years ago

      whoucrappin: thanks for commenting - but apparently you didn't read the entire article . . . such as my Author's Note at the end of it . . . or the part above the comment section where I ask for readers to add news sources they feel are unbiased. Your comment leads me to believe you might have a long list of unbiased news sources in mind, so feel free. I really am interested in hearing about them! However, part of being unbiased is actually reading or listening to what "the other side" has to say and I have a feeling that's not your forte.

      As for the part of your comment which refers to it being posted only if I "ok" it? There is an option on this website that allows authors to do that, but I don't have that option enabled and can't speak for others.

    • profile image

      whoucrappin 3 years ago

      10+ Independent, Unbiased Online News Sources and Why America Needs More of Them

      This is your title but evidently I missed the unbiased list of news sites. PBS and NPR are two of the most liberal organizations around! why is it liberals and conservatives have no understanding of the meaning of unbiased? It's incredible the ignorance that's pervading every corner of our country and also the world! And now I see this will only be posted if the author ok's it? nothing like only allowing those comments you like.