None of them have blanket trust. Read each article, dig through half a pound of bullshit to get to the facts behind the click bait headline. Then see if that makes sense. Seek out second source if the topic requires it.

AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Guardian

This helps:

• https://www.allsides.com/media-bias
• https://www.snopes.com/

Lemmy shitposts

None in isolation.

CBC is a pretty reliable go-to although they're more than a bit pandering these days. BBC is similar. Al Jazeera is pretty reliable for things not related to Islam and Palestine in particular (although they're not as biased as they could be). AP is fairly neutral. Aside from that, it's non-legacy Canadian sources like the Walrus and the Tyee, which all have their problems but are good at exposing reality.

Dropsitenews

DemocracyNow!

Mintpressnews

Theintercept

KenKlippenstein

Jacobin

Why? Because they have not spread pro Israel propaganda without doing a minute amount fact checking. Or worse, straight up lying for Israel.

There are a few, such as TheGuardian, which have spread massive Israeli propaganda for a year. They have recently turned around tried to put the mask back on. But they have already shown their true face.

None. I get my news from 4chan.

There are others, but I'd say these are the top in terms of credibility, investigative journalism, and reliability

That said, it's still best practice to cross verify reporting

The Intercept

Democracy Now

Common Dreams

ProPublica

Mother Jones

Jacobin

Zeteo

Drop Site News

Al Jazeera

+972 Magazine

Human Rights Organizations

Edit: adding Counter Punch

Peoplesdispatch is one I put high trust into but all reporting is inherently biased and should be read with an understanding of its biases. I also like the Al Jazeera and Jacobin but both of those can be hit or miss sometimes. Especially the Jacobin lmao

I ask gemini and take everything it says as 100% fact 🙏

As others have said no one source should have blanket trust.

Understanding the bias the source may have by looking up who owns/funds it and understanding how that might skew what you’re reading is important.

For news based on studies I usually will try to directly to the study which should list the methodology which will help show how well done it was.

If I have time later I’ll put together a list of ones I use and what I’ve seen as their biases.

I've stopped paying attention to what any regular news source says about anything themselves since it is all basically profit driven and therefore unreliable. Rather I just pay attention to sources where I can see what is said or done from the horses mouth directly, and then pay attention to people's reactions to such things.

These are usually few and far between, but I'm talking about what was written or said by specific persons with the clear source of it coming from their personally verified outlets.

I also wait on this information before thinking too much about it as well because god knows if someone catches something out for being AI generated or a deepfake or what have you in this day and age. After a few days it gains some actual credibility as coming from that person and being the genuine article.

It is also important to still not trust what any one person says about something else as well, or even multiple persons. I can never really trust what is said by anyone as facts anymore - rather this only gives insight into that specific persons opinions on the other thing.

In the face of mountains of clear evidence and individually verified sources from many multiple persons - then and only then can I begin to trust something as fact.

Make sure you check out Fair.org too!

The Guardian

BBC and CBC. They're not unbiased, but I haven't found any better.

I don't trust a particular source. I sorta trust GroundNews to at least show me the bias and give me less-overtly-biased alternatives. Otherwise I am more trustful in general (but don't fully trust) investigative journalism orgs like ProPublica, independent journalists like Ken Klippenstein, etc.

BBC

The ABC

Guardian

Democracy Now

CBC

NPR

Basically anyone who is getting removeded at for not towing the line

No single source. I like how Verity collates the facts and the spins from multiple sources across the web.

I extend more trust if I see consistent stories across multiple sources. If one is reporting something and no one else is, I question why.

Ground News

Ich_iel

None. When was the last time you saw an actual headline not click-bait?

News is not about issues anymore - since the advent of 24 hr TV last century - It's about filling time until the next exposé about Meghan frigging Markle, or some influencer of zero repute who overdosed.

The Conversation is great, though they don't necessarily cover headlines. They look at got topics and interview experts. It's about making a bridge between science and journalism.

The environmental sensors on my local network.

I dont watch international news but in germany, taz amd ND are pretty good. Best track record international i found is 404 media.

BBC, AP, The Guardian, NYT, NBC, CBC, The Conversation, The Atlantic, Nature.

ABC NBC CBS AP NPR Guardian

Trust to be accurate or trust to be unbiased? I trust the hyperlocal paper to be unbiased but the articles are all over the place. I trust most large publications to be accurate but with their articles and editorials in line with the paper's overall bias.

NPR, NYT, BBC. I have my criticisms, but seldom are these sources factually incorrect.