Definition of independent for the purposes of this question: source is not owned by a for-profit corporation, is not financially backed by any billionaire (either directly or via foundation or nonprofit organization) and is not financed by any national government (even if run without oversight).
It can have any perceived bias or political leaning.
Edit: Just to add it has to be written in English.
You must log in or # to comment.
Try the BBC. Or the English channels of DW (Deutsche Welle).
Keep in mind that shutting down independent or opposing media is a top priority for any dictator. Local sources will die off quickly.
BBC
Are you serious? The BBC are literally a government mouthpiece, with a subversive right-wing bias. When Labour is in power, they over-report every misdeed, and when the Tories are in power, they maybe raise an eyebrow as the country burns. The last BBC director was a major Tory who received a sizeable bribe from his party during his tenure.
I think you would like 404 Media: https://www.404media.co/
The Lever.
Drop Site News.
Don’t follow news sources. Follow journalists.
Most journalists are still sitting on Twitter or those that got kick out from Twitter are on Nazi infested Substack.
I didn’t mean follow as in Twitter. I meant follow as in pay attention to them and the stories they work on.
NPR - National Public Radio. It’s the closest you’re gonna get for unbiased independent news. It leans left but seriously, you’re not gonna find better.
Won’t be around much longer after January.
Its getting shut down Jan 20
🤷♂️
Edit: republicans have all 3 branches of government. trump is dissolving the department of education for being “woke”. NPR has a left leaning bias. NPR is not immune from getting dissolved.
No it’s not. That’s blatantly false. Stop fear mongering. Also barely any funding for NPR news proper comes from the federal government. It’s like 1%.
Its established by an act of congress. republicans have all 3 branches of government. NPR is perceived to have a left leaning bias. republicans have repeatedly wanted to dismandle public institutions like education. trump want to dissole the department of education. What makes you think they wont just dissolve NPR? You have too much faith in government.
Did you not read the part where I said that only 1% of their funding comes from the federal government?
Also republicans won all 3 branches back in 2016 and threatened the same bullshit, but never followed through. I assume you read the clickbait news headline about marjory greene being quoted railing on NPR from a day or two ago? I wouldn’t put too much stock into that.
Oh they’re not cutting the funding. They are undoing the act of congress that first established NPR.
Also the 2nd term is not like the first term. You see how his cabinet picks got crazier? I mean, a pedophile for AG and a science denier for FDA?
This isn’t like the first term, the guardrails are off.
Idk what to say. I’m also scared. But saying they’re losing funding January 20th isn’t true. As of now they aren’t. And I don’t think they will. I hope I’m right.
I like propublica and democracy now, but when you start talking about foundations, it’s hard to know, they’re basically all funded at least at some point by a billionaire.
That’s kind of the thing that happens at least in the US, you either are big enough that some foundation gives you money, cause you actually need a lot of it to exist here, or you are so small that you can’t cover the kinds of stories the other guys can.
This system is designed such that journalism not ruined by the need to be profitable is relegated to the whims of patrons, much like art in feudal Europe.
I came here to promote those two outlets as well. Democracy Now and ProPublica are two of the only sources I have nearly absolute trust in. I still consume them critically, but I trust their work because they’ve been doing consistently high quality journalism for years. They’ve never let me down, so I throw them a few bucks whenever I can afford to. It’s probably not a coincidence that they both do more of the muckraking type of journalism than anyone else these days. When I think of ‘traditional’ hard-hitting journalism, these are the two I think of.
This is something else made so much worse by wealth inequality. The very wealthy have a vastly outsized influence on every aspect of the world. Being a billionaire, no matter how well-intentioned, is inherently a negative for humanity.
Ground news is an aggregator for news sources but it tries to show the bias of the news orgs whose stories it shows. This tool may help you find the independent sources you seek while also informing you of their potential bias and ownership
Paid, but even cheaper tier is worth it.
It has paid tiers, but I’ve been using it for free
TheGuardian is pretty decent.
I listen to NPR often and I enjoy it, but it ultimately has the same problem as other mainstream outlets in that they are beholden to advertisers and, in turn, to extractors of capital. It leans left socially, but as with almost all other major news organizations, it is self-interested and will almost always support neocolonialist US practices. One tiny, not-the-best but temporally relevant example – they have yet to call what’s happening in Gaza genocide.
As someone else mentioned, there is Democracy Now!, they are viewer funded, but that is also supplemented by groups such as the Ford Foundation, which obviously has ties to capital as well. Still, Democracy Now! will give more of an “outside looking in” view of the United States.
I like listening to both NPR and Democracy Now! to hear both the US-centric (capitalist) points vs the a more global (and anti-capitalist) viewpoint.
I’ve read some good balanced stuff on “substack”. But you have to pay for most of their content. I found a few real journalists there that will allow you to read some of their stuff no charge
Mother Jones is run by a nonprofit funded by reader donations. I’m sure some billionaires probably donate to it, but so do others.
