I remember talking points memo being pretty good, but that probably means the it has a significant liberal bias.

>>4485
thanks I'll check it out

>>4484
everything has bias, use an aggregator like google news or yahoo news.

you only get a sense of what is really happening by seeing all the stories everywher and not the just the stories the sites want to cover and pick out for you.

>>4484
The economist, while not completely unbiased, is by far the best I've used. It's British, so it's objective to US politics

I have put a bit of effort into getting news from a variety of sources. At the moment the list is as follows:

ABC for local news (Australian broadcast corp)
BBC World
Al-Jazeera
New York Times
Financial Times (very good IMO)
Vice News (leftie as fuck)
The Times (UK)
New Scientist magazine
RT (only recently because Syria)

I find it good to read a single story of a common event as told by two or more sources so as to get a sense of the inherent bias.

>>4503
>RT (only recently because Syria)
>RT ever being ok

>>4558

Out of interest. Want to see what Russian news has to say about things. Want to get an idea as to how people in Russia see events through their RT filter.

Reuters.com is my favourite

I want Ana to sit on my face.

As long as its not Gawker or Brietbart its OK

Cant fudge the drudge

>>4608
Drudge gets his fudge packed nightly by his Cuban cabana boy

www.democracynow.org is my favorite

I usually try to listen to a radio show in the mornings
The Armstrong and Getty Show, for anyone interested

>>4560
They reflect russian media, not population

i use boards.4chan.org/news/

>>4484
Al Jazeera, it's relatively unbiased and shows footage of what the terrorists are talking about. In situations like the Gaza Strip incident, they show both sides of the fight.

drudgereport.com is my homepage

>>4484
BBC is the best imo. It generally tries pretty hard to be unbiased.
Al Jazeera and Reuters are also very good
RT can be interesting just for a different perspective

>>4501
>The economist

Pretty well written at times but far from unbiased, views everything from a lens of self aggrandizing neoliberal dogma.

All news source are crap.

I use a variety:
Reuters feed
AP feed
My father has a Bloomberg terminal, a Stratfor account and a Debka account
CNN
FOX
BBC
RT
AL Jazeera
NYT
Pentagon or .mil press releases
Washington Post
WSJ
Wikileaks

As for news aggregation feeds
Drudge
WhatReallyHappened
Reddit news subreddits

You will never get to know the "truth". You can just get to be closer or further from it.

BTW I'm not really digging this SFW pol.
>No racism
Ok, so we absolutely cannot discuss how phenotypical differences express themselves in aggregate cognitive differences, which have been demonstrated to be genetic.

Fuck this board.

>>5760
>phenotypical differences
What the fuck does that have to do with this thread? Fuck off stormfront

I used to like RT but their blatant Kremliness has become too much

>>5760
>As for news aggregation feeds
>Drudge
>WhatReallyHappened
>Reddit news subreddits
None of these are real aggregates. All of them have 'editors', in the case of Reddit the users of Reddit are the 'editor'. The point of a real aggregator is that you see every possible version of a story. You can only get close to that short of an RSS feed through a service like GoogleNews or YahooNews.

http://www.npr.org/ and Google News are my go to.

Most everything published by the Brookings Institution or the Council on Foreign Relations (including its magazine, Foreign Affairs) is very good. That's the kind of stuff the US political elite read

what do all of you think of npr?