In case of Finnish news I mostly check HIGH.FI, the news aggregator from the creators of the technology site AfterDawn. The site appears to have an English version but I haven’t used it.

Wikipedia current events portal for no-nonsense, just the facts headlines. Google news for everything else. Curious to hear what others use.


Oooh. I like this. I’d forgotten Wikipedia has a news section!

Aren’t google news biased to what you would like to see?

Yes by default. I have all personalization settings turned off that are user accessible. You can also disable news sources that you don’t like - for me it’s all the adwalled sites like NYT

Dreeg Ocedam

The Conversation is a really good source of content that is really interesting. Zero clickbait and really interesting topics.

It a really good source of info.

You get easily digestible academic papers on current topics.

It’s free as in beer and freedom.

And from my academic standpoint they seem to do a really good job although I have not yet written an article with them.

Never heard of it before. Thank you so much!

I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.

Snopes has been a former Facebook checker and MBFC has Google Analytics. I would be a little afraid and cautious.

Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.

You think the funding and affiliations of organisations have nothing to do with the agenda they propagate? Oh summer child.

Doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t judge a book by its publisher.

Snopes is not a publisher, but acting as the arbiter of truths. So if they have backing by biased entities, that leaves them vulnerable to be biased since these enitites are the stakeholders and customers, not people who might be relying on them to see facts.

Only the customer is served by these groups. You are not a customer of Snopes or MBFC.


There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.

There exists independent media. You clearly do not know your stuff and are willing to deny it as well. You have made up your mind, so this conversation is over.

If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.

Basically they’re better than nothing.

Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?

I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.

As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.

Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?

Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?

What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.

You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.

Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.

You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.

Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.

Not feeding you anymore, since you know what you are doing. Have a good life.

Yes, what i’m doing is asking for actually information. If toy want to suggest alternatives, i’ll check them out. Instead you just want everyone to trust you on your word. And looking at your history you just want to live in your bubble and fight anyone that doesn’t agree with you.

So give us some alternatives.

Or ignore me and prove me right, and i sincerely do wish everyone, including you, a good life. And not in the sarcastic way you dismiss people.

I wish others good life and hope they gain wisdom, not sarcastically like you generalised. People have this generalisation problem.

Instead of these biased fact checkers, why do you not research yourself into any publisher or source organisation? You have the internet and search engines on your fingers, go check yourself and remove the middleman.

Why are you advocating everyone instead of being educated and independent, employ a middleman fact checker who nobody is keeping in check? Why are you claiming Snopes, MBFC or these should be an authotiry on validation of news sources?

And internet search providers aren’t biased at all either, right?

There’s so much false info on the internet tout can’t trust any of it. None of them are regulated. in my experience at least snopes and mbfc try to back up their claims.

So you just randomly look up stuff and believe whatever hit is first?

Search engines are biased on how you phrase things.

So you have zero trustworthy sources you’re saying.

I’m legitemately asking you, for the fourth time, give me some sources.

I’m attempting to educate myself more, but you give zero information to help that, outside of critizing me, but yet you insist i’m the troll.


So do you do all your own scientific research as well? Have you confirmed gravity? Or do you just trust that it’s real?

We have to assume some level of trust on some line, until proven otherwise.

That is why you have multiple internets earch engines. Snopes, MBFC and so on are not infiltrating news organisations with their own spies, they also use Google and so on. You, instead, can use Qwant, Bing, Yandex, Google, Baidu and so on. Multiple search engines. Multiple resources.

Do you know the methodology of how Snopes or MBFC work? Are they transparent? Are their financial records transparent? No, they are not. Learn to research yourself.

You are not going to deflect this conversation with “gimme sources while I keep goalshifting to distract your focus” anymore. It stops now.

You are insisting these fact checkers that take questionable sponsorships or are part of questionable organisations are unbiased and people should rely on them, instead of learning to research themselves.

I’m not insisting anything. How do you verify the website that was given to you in the search engine iz trustworthy?

By looking at its country origin, funding, associations and so on?

So for every single news article you completely research every facet of a company? You have way more patience than i do. But that probably is what it takes on the internet today.

I’d assume once you research a company though that you wouldn’t research it again, you just save yourself time and go based on your original research?

Or do you check up on each and everytime?

Do you have a list of ones you trust?

I research news outlets once a year or so to keep in check. Then I cross check with Mwdia Navigator chart on SWPRS, which has zero external funding and is an independent anonymous group, and funnily, absolutely smeared up on Wikipedia in a disgusting manner. You will not see such smearing on any other fact checker.

You can learn here how to work around the bias of fact checking and learn how to do it yourself. SWPRS even reiterates your point about Google.

https://swprs.org/seven-tips-on-media-use/ https://opinionfront.com/types-reasons-of-media-bias https://fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/

Awesome! Now that is helpful information. Thank you! I will absolutely look into those. I greatly appreciate the help.

My friends mention anything interesting, and then I look it up.

I stopped looking at news myself.

Mainstream: RSS from national newspaper (on the todo list) or their paper version if I have time at work.

tech and activism: mastodon, lemmy

I have to lean myself off of social media for news. I’m transitioning to just getting all my news off of RSS feeds, which I subscribe to various sites that I trust.

I don’t really bother much with daily news.


Work at a news station, so I see the national and local news every day. Also some email subs and social media like lemmy and mastodon, sometimes Tumblr


My nextcloud server syncs several RSS news feed which then syncs to my phone and other devices…

I had some errors with that… but thanks for reminding me of this feature. I got to work on it to make it work.

If you want you could post your RSS links here so others could copy them :)


Which feeds?



deleted by creator

ghost laptop

From Lemmy.


I like this. I hope that Lemmy becomes large enough so that I eventually feel that the news is constantly being uploaded by users, especially local news!


I worry that using link aggregators and micro blogging for news is not a form that is conducive to positive outcomes. I don’t remember where, but it might have been on the Center for Humane Technology’s podcast where I found out about a team of engineers who recommended the separation of community and news consumption.

When reading a traditional newspaper or news feed the reader consumes the news alone, and they have time to process what they have read and form their own opinions. When consuming news from social media sources the reader will usually be heavily influenced by the dominate opinions in the comments section, and they are less likely to form their own opinions.

In other words, the structure of a Reddit, Lemmy, Twitter, or Facebook is fundamentally geared toward eroding civic discourse and critical thought while fostering mob-mentality.

Some of the proposed engineering fixes were to disallow posting to comments sections until the reader passed some check that verified they read an entire article, and only allowing the user to read others comments after the user had either posted their own comment, or enough time (hours or days) had lapsed so that the user would likely have formed their own opinions and would be less likely to engage in emotional group-think.

Verifying commenters read an entire article would be challenging and annoying, and a time-delay before posting would undermine the appeal of current social media, however, so these ideas haven’t been explored.

Edit: Change pronouns to be more inclusive.

his own opinions

What happens in the case of her or their?

ghost laptop

then maybe we c0uld have a news community without comments, or well, i didnt use to read news before because reaching to so many of them was exhausting so its better than nothing i guess

It has grown a lot over the last few months! So I am hopeful that it will continue to do so

I use a mix match of Telegram and Reddit custom multireddit feeds of my own.

Then there is https://swprs.org/media-navigator/ that I heavily use. This is another resource https://everythingprogressive.org/media/media_console.html

I also read a lot of news and posts on the communist and Chinese diaspora subreddits to get a fresh, “other side” of view to stay self critical, because staying self critical is the most unbiased and revolutionary act in these times of blind people forming and screaming opinions based on watching a handful news channels and websites of either liberal or conservative side.

Edit: I also do not rely on fact checkers and am good at finding the funders, trustees, company or government backings of a news media source, so it helps me. I do not trust Snopes or MBFC with questionable past and affiliations.


I use a mix match of Telegram and Reddit custom multireddit feeds of my own.

The conspirational people’s news packing list.

Implying all content on both platforms is r/conspiracy and r/neoconNWO. Galaxy brain


RSS feeds from a number of sites. Mainly Il Post to keep up with what’s happening in the world and in my country. I frequently browse lemmy and sometimes HackerNews. I also follow some subreddits. I keep up with both RSS feeds and reddit feeds from Telegram, because it’s easy to use both from desktop and mobile, and I can easily share news to family & friends, or forward them to a bot that saves them to my Wallabag


Yep I do the same with self-hosted FreshRSS for RSS feeds, and Wallabang.

From RSS feeds from news sites


I don’t really worry about news atm, nothing i can do about what’s going on. I figure the best thing i can do is gather knowledge.

reuters mostly, since I heard its where lots of other news orgs get their news (along with AP)

I hate the new reuters UI though and they seem to require a login now…

RSS Feeds (Miniflux) , which consists of mostly technology/current news feeds. Some that I frequently find myself reading the most would have to be The Verge and MotherBoard.

Every news site will report every major event, so you really you just need to choose one to follow regularly.

I’m mainly interested in the Middle East, so I check Al Jazeera daily. The output is manageable, not like a bunch of Western outlets that report on every tweet and non-issue, but they never miss anything actually important. Of course there’s bias, but it’s super obvious. More so than most. When there’s actually something I consider worth following, I check out more sites.

I am sad to say I see a lot poor way of gathering news sources. But RSS is pretty good and I use it myself, but I feel like it doesn’t work that well for news. works better for blogposts, following youtube channels I feel.

I follow mostly regional and national news so I can’t help you much there,

Politico and Reuters mainly. I check Washington Post and NYT occasionally.

I am subscribed to a variety of RSS feeds, including some Twitter feeds (via Nitter) and some newsbots on Mastodon. I also sometimes watch my local news on TV (I have a cheap little antenna that allows me to pick up local TV stations) and sometimes I’ll listen to NPR.


deleted by creator

deleted by creator

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 18 users / day
  • 31 users / week
  • 120 users / month
  • 423 users / 6 months
  • 3 subscribers
  • 170 Posts
  • Modlog