this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026

60 points (95.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49795 readers

780 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

technopagan@lemmy.world

What are some good, independent news outlets that are reliable? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by sbeak@sopuli.xyz to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ideally ones that provide RSS/Atom feeds. Currently, I'm following the BBC, CBC, The Guardian, DW, and Al Jazeera, and they provide reliable information, but there is always a bit of a bias. For instance, BBC and DW are quite pro-Israel, while Al Jazeera are rarely critical of the Qatari government. Are there any independent news outlets that have less of bias w/ RSS feeds?

edit: Wording has been changed a bit. One more thing, I'd rather have news sources that are not US-centric. As somebody from Hong Kong, I'd also like to ask if there are any good ones that cover the South China + Southeast Asia region, since SCMP was bought out by Alibaba a few years ago.

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] inbn@lemmy.zip 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I think you are on the right track. Newswire services like AP and Reuters tend to have the least noticeable spin, but no news service is bias free. Best you can do is diversify your outlets and look at not just the narrative but now each outlet sources their claims (Who are they talking to? What data do they use to support their conclusions?)

I do not know much about HK news sources, but I follow some Taiwan-based outlets like Focus Taiwan (state-backed) and Taipei Times (largest English-language outlet). There is often coverage of HK and southeast Asia there but obviously more in how it relates to Taiwan. NHK in Japan may also be an option. Best of luck!

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago

I will check out some of those Taiwan-based news sites, thanks!

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Just don't use BBC for anything related to the Palestinian genocide.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 6 points 20 hours ago

Or for anything related to transgender people

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

The only part of the BBC reporting that may still be useful is the 6am Radio 4 news.

[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I find fact based source sites like Reuters the best for this. If you want to understand exactly what is speculation and what is known about a story, there isn't much that I have found to do this better. There is however some leaning towards the effects on stock markets, but I find the core bias well managed.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 0 points 20 hours ago

I read reuters every day if I can, and they are pretty good for world events and business news especially.

I've noticed some bias creeping in with candidates like El Sayed and Mandami and the like. But they have some really good reporting sometimes. They actually cut off US users in like 2024 or so, a paywall, just for us that I'm aware, but have since removed it.

The guardian helps round out what reuters leaves out. Then check The Intercept and Propublica regularly for investigative stuff. I need more but everything else I used to read online is paywalled now it seems.

[–] Nolvamia@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Australia has two public broadcasters: ABC and SBS. Both provide reasonably balanced reporting.

abc.net.au/news is the main one, similar in concept to the BBC. Officially they don't support RSS feeds any longer, but they still exist and work. See https://james.cridland.net/blog/2025/abc-news-australia-rss-feeds/

sbs.com.au/news is our "Special Broadcasting Service" and caters to our more multicultural and indigenous audiences in general, but their news is fairly solid, perhaps without the breadth and depth of the ABC. Their main RSS news feed is at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/feed and they have others. See https://feedsearch.dev/api/v1/search?result=true&url=sbs.com.au

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

I will follow SBS, thanks mate!

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 20 hours ago

The fact that the US police seem to target the Australian Broadcast Corporation every time they cover civil disturbance in the US does speak to their credibility to me.

Same as the fact the retuers journalists got periodically wasted by the US army in the Iraq and afghanistan conflicts spoke well to theirs.

[–] AliasVortex@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

404 Media? I'm not much one to follow news, so I can't speak to accuracy or biases, but I've heard them recommend as an independent source. Especially since, they should be less beholden to corporate interests since they're a journalist cooperative.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

PBS is decent, if written to a bit of a dumbed-down level at times while their NPR counterpart is better with that. Ars Technica was originally an excellent tech site, but has broadened its repertoire quite a lot over the past decade - although it doesn't focus so much on the things most mainstream media sites cover, there's still routinely some overlap.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 3 points 20 hours ago

NPR is not better than PBS. I am glad NPR is there, but they are NOT reliable. They allow corporate interest groups to come on and bold faced lie without challenge. Plus they are scared of their own shadow, at least if the conservatives are around.

The BBC is better than NPR, but they have their own problems, and are probably getting worse with the recent tory purge over the movie about the israeli occupation last year was it?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago

The intercept does good work. Surprised no one has mentioned them yet.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Drop Site, Breaking Points, 404, The Guardian

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I second Breaking Points. Very good news source with viewpoints you won't hear in most places.

My only complaint is they do have an analyst named Emily Jashinsky who is a Tucker Carlson type, and whenever she opines I grit my teeth a little. (Though, like Tucker, she is knowledgeable and occasionally offers angles on issues I didn't consider.)

[–] susieq0044@sh.itjust.works 5 points 23 hours ago

The guardian.

[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago

If you're looking for general news I subscribe to Grist, The Conversation, Mother Jones, and ProPublica. They have a mostly neutral bias. I also have some leftie sources: Vox, The 19th, and Jacobin. And one right wing news source that is more libertarian than MAGA: The American Conservative, just to keep an eye on them. All of those have a US bias. The EFF's Deep Links and Open Culture are also great but are more niche.

[–] mosaic09@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

You are right to use multiple sources. Avoid US sources except NPR, PBS, AP news. Decent sources also include ProPublica, DW, the Narwhal, the rabble, the Tyee, Reuters

[–] hexagonwin@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

maybe also AP News? not really a news outlet but i also have MBFC and Lead Stories

i use freshrss's extractor to get feeds from sites without rss/atom and also for full text instead of short intro, might be useful for you too

[–] PromKingJosh@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 19 hours ago

https://europeancorrespondent.com/en (EU funded non-profit), though they focus on casual news from around Europe rather than world events

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

German ARD and ZDF are about as reliable as BBC, if you don't mind using translation tools.

[–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago

correct, three of them are Zionists propagandists but calling them reliable is a skit

[–] forbiddencherry@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"The Conversation" is usually pretty good. No idea if they have any feeds, though.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 20 hours ago

https://theconversation.com/au/articles.atom

You may want to replace au with uk or nz or whatever...

[–] bitofarambler@crazypeople.online 1 points 23 hours ago

1440 keeps things on the level, the least spin of any news source I'm aware of

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I know what you mean by pro corporate bias and I don't know how exactly to describe it. Maybe that they tend to be reluctant to rock the boat too much?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I like the daily beans podcasts with allison gill and daina goldberg. They do a podcast and a few other things... they're great.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you define corporate bias? I'm not disagreeing but it just sounds a bit vague. That the outlets themselves are (owned by) corporations?

There's plenty public media in most countries, possibly not corporate depending on your definition.

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

As in they are usually aligned with corporations and have certain biases associated with that. For instance, the BBC and DW tend to be pro-Israel, while Al Jazeera avoids criticism of the Qatari government. They are still very reliable news sources, they're not spouting off nonsense like that of Fox News or the Telegraph. Everybody has biases, no one can truly be "unbiased", but I'd like to read more independent news outlets that are not backed by big corporations.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for clarifying.

BBC and DW tend to be pro-Israel, while Al Jazeera avoids criticism of the Qatari government.

But these aren't corporations. I think I misunderstood what you mean - not news outlets biased towards corporations, but news corporations biased towards something?

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 1 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, maybe pro-corporate isn't the right word for it. I will amend my question

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hmm… it’s gonna be tough to find brands that produce quality international news without something of a corpo bent.

Maybe if you have areas of interest you can find writers and reporters in that space who you can follow and perhaps compensate directly.

Also, have you considered Ground News?

[–] AliasVortex@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

If OP is trying to avoid corporate biases, Ground News may not be quite what they're looking for. Eric Rosenfield has an excellent pair of videos (one, two) doing a long form deep dive on the company. It's an excellent bit of citizen journalism and well worth the watch. That said, it's not a short watch, so the tldr is that by presenting both sides as having equal weight and relevance it normalizes the bat shit insane stuff presented by one of the sides. The second video digs into the Ground News owners/ board members and partner organizations used for assigning biases. All of which are overwhelmingly corporate and very far removed from the ideals of journalism.

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

Also, have you considered Ground News?

It looks very US-centric, and it's always a bad idea to get all your news from one source. I'm personally not a fan, and would rather get news from multiple different outlets and judge them myself.