True to its ownership structure

San Francisco Chronicle for print news. Good for both local and national/international news

CNN - for Breaking News because it has correspondents in place internationally and are excellent at covering the big stories quickly.

They seem the most obsessed with accuracy.

They are independently owned by trusts and a media group. They are shielded from intimidation by the US administration.

EDIT: Cool project!

Any source of information is information. It’s all in how a viewer interprets it.

Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2025, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Moderation means no clickbait, no scams, and AI-written articles are called out and flagged/deleted ASAP.

1. Democratic Underground. ( https://democraticunderground.com )
2. Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com) Tech and general interest news.

The honest truth!

Mine are exactly the same as yours, except I feared “aggregators” might not be an acceptable answer. The Guardian IS my most trusted “traditional” news source.

They both are solidly people powered and completely lack algorithmic interference.

Quick factual overview of local and global stories.

They don't seem to be part of our current US corporate media kowtowing to the apparent demand to normalize the spectacularly abnormal.

But I should mention that DU is actually where I go first for my news.

Accuracy and objectivity, while no drama, hysterics or personalities take center stage.

...just about any decent national news organization that's not owned by plutocrats and oligarchs.

They give background and cover in depth

are more well known than "reliable" sources. I think this is an excellent project.

Rec

They are a UK company and are not intimidated by Trump’s extortion of US media through his lawsuits and constant threats. He sues media like CBS and they cave by paying him undeserved damages, in CBS’s case because they had a big business deal pending that needed Trump’s approval.

Got asked that question by one of the people who work for me and I gave him the exact same answer.

As others have, I recommend The Guardian. I have a bookmark for the US news "home page." (You can choose UK, Australia, maybe other areas too.). They have great minute by minute live coverage for important events, posting every five or ten minutes when it's busiest. I also like that it's not just political news, but they cover popular culture, climate, technology, health, arts, books, you name it. They publish far more information than anywhere else I've seen about what's happening in the non-English speaking, non-European parts of the world. Some long-form articles are available as podcasts. They have the best overall coverage of LGBTQ+ issues of the major outlets (that I've seen), especially since the NY Times has helped skew the public discourse on transgender issues (personally relevant to me).

They have reporters stationed here permanently, both US-born and from abroad. I really like that they don't take advertising, and as someone on limited income, I appreciate the options to pay what I can, with no paywall. Having seen what Rupert Murdoch (Fox News owner) did to degrade the Australian and the British press, the Guardian staff knows the value of remaining untainted by the motivations of a for-profit structure. They have been called upon in the past to collaborate on important international investigative reporting, challenging corruption and abuse, and that says to me that other reporters and organizations trust them too.

https://www.theguardian.com/us

As a side note, I used to be a paying subscriber to the NYT, having grown up in a household where we always bought the thickly-stacked Sunday edition. They got so bad that their articles have been referred to in footnotes to support right-wing laws limiting the civil rights of LGBTQ people, both on a state level, and federally. It really is sad.

Happy to answer questions by DM, if that helps. Good luck on the project!

But my #1 priority... I will never consume any news source that "tells me what to think"... I don't need their analysis, I can analyze for myself... better than they can.

Hi Sadie,

I rely on multiple news sources from broadcast and Internet media and then digest and analyze them to find the common factors. I rely on my assessment to find the truth. In retrospect, that method works well.

Why? Because the details vary from one source to another, so I don't put my trust in any single source.

I see I’m in good company here with the Guardian

Meidas Touch Network: Legal AF
MSNBC: Lawrence O'Donnell
MSNBC: Rachel Maddow
The Guardian newspaper
BBC News
Democracy Docket
Pete Buttigieg podcast
Rick Wilson podcast
This is Gavin Newsom podcast
The Daily Beast podcast
IHIP News Podcast
Heather Cox Richardson podcast (professor)
Talking Feds podcast
Richard J. Murphy podcast (professor)
Local Newscasts
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (youtube)

Sure you have to careful but often breaking stories hit youtube first. They have been good about showing GESTAPO ICE KIDNAPPING, ARRESTING AMERICANS... little kids too. All my young adult kids get their info first from youtube. I think it helped with the elections. Good luck with the project...great topic.

news.

And the guardian

Despite the problems recently, they are still my go-to for news. I'd say most of the staff (a few of which I've worked with in the past) are dedicated journalists. Forget the bosses. They don't report the news. The dedicated staff does.

on a story including social media and legacy media. I look at social media for breading news but then check elsewhere for accuracy

covers political stories others miss

More accurate USA news than just about any USA source.

Unless you count new members of Congress, and they are very good about closed-mouthed when it suits them, or makes sense to shut up.

Other than that, they incredibly well-connected Norm Ornstein, except that what he tells me is off the record unless he says otherwise. But when he says it's OK to reveal what he says/knows in public, it's usually hugely interesting!

The media either makes shit up, or rushes to publicize what they THINK is accurate. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes it's extremely frustrating. My most glaring case with DU was in 2008, the day Obama was set to reveal his choice for VP. Some of Biden's staff was a little overeager about the news, and was discussing it in an indoor swimming pool at 7:00 that morning. After all, there was only one other person in the pool, and he was a diminutive Asian kid who said nothing and, as far as they knew, spoke no English. Oops. That diminutive Asian kid was my 18 year old half-Japanese nephew, who was working for Matt Angle's Lone Star Project, a Washington lobby operation for Texas Democrats. He understood every word, and called me 45 minutes later to tell me who Obama's VP pick was eight hours before the announcement.

I made the stupid assumption that I could tell DU and get thanked for it. Hah! Fat chance. A couple of angry posts demanding LINK???? plus several more demanding that I tell everyone what made ME so special, and that I must have been spouting crap because why should I know and they didn't? Etc. etc. I should have just shut up and told one one. If I had said where I got the info from, and word leaked back to Biden's office (all it needed was for one person in DC to see the post, after all), and we might have gotten Biden's staffers in serious trouble on what was to be one of the most exciting days of their careers. So, I just said I couldn't say how I knew, and that only made the skeptics more furious. When the announcement was made, exactly ONE DUer posted an apology. ONE. Ever since then, I have been a little more careful what I post when the source is a personal "I can't say" acquaintance. It beats telling angry posters to go find their own goddam link, stick their anger up their you-know-what, and leave me the hell alone. They don't call D.C. the world's biggest small town for nothing.

As for media, I read the German press, although of late, they have struck a nasty anti-Democratic tone, saying why don't the Democrats DO something, etc etc. The extremist right has all three branches of government and 90% of the media in their pockets, and WE are supposed to do something? Invade and smash up the White House. The Republicans are even doing THAT before we even contemplated it (which we didn't). It hasn't been 100 years since the Weimarer Republik was dissolved in favor of the Third Reich's National Socialists. They should know better than anyone what happens if all media is in the hands of an evil force that has eliminated all opposition.

One saving grace is that much of the US media is still beholden to commercial trends rather than solely extremist right-leaning political trends.When the wind starts blowing so hard in the opposite direction that they CAN'T pretend not to notice, they suddenly notice with a vengeance. Note the coverage since Wednesday morning. The American media suddenly noticed that the USA had a strong opposition that was alive and well, and living just about EVERYwhere. Gee, look at that! Sorry Sir Rupert and Crown Prince Miller, we'll have to say a few words about that, no way around it this time.

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2025, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Public Radio and TV stations are the last remaining nationwide news services that haven’t been compromised. They broadcast actual, real, news - good solid information and good programming. There’s not much “infotainment” and hardly any “happy talk.”

You can no longer rely on the large media corporations for reliable information, as the majority of them have been sold or have paid millions in “tribute” to Trump. CBS news has a “minder”(which may explain some of last week’s softball 60 minutes interview with Trump. CNN reports 18 false statements that were not corrected (lets not sugar coat it, those are lies). To really keep informed, you need to read many sources, subscribe to many newspapers and websites, and sort though hundreds of stories each week, because “all we want are the facts, ma’am.”

and the Guardian. Both have a proven track record of accuracy and integrity in their reporting.

Second the many mentions of the U.K.'s Guardian
Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!
Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (the only two mainstream U.S. journalists I trust)
ProPublica
Democracy Docket
KPFK/Pacifica radio here in L.A.
NPR
PBS

Also, echoing what many others have said, I start each day by checking the latest on D.U. and have for 20+ years - you all guide me to the best and most current stories.

AP, NPR, Reuters, El Pais and Der Spiegel. MS Now (MSNBC). ProPublica. Here, at DU, of course.

I prefer to read/watch and compare from several sources. I trust them more.

Teen Vogue was reliable until recently.

DU
NYT
The Guardian