Sounds like you're looking for independent journalism, I'm in the same boat. I've found checking commondreams.org, scheerpost.com, therealnews.com, unicornriot.ninja, fair.org, thecanary.co, leftvoice.org, consortiumnews.com, labornotes.org, and popularresistance.org/news make for a great news feed. Those are an array of independent news outlets which keep it almost entirely just news. Setting up an RSS feed with these sites would be a solid move to ensure your getting news with none of the BS.

I can recommend Reuters, given it still has a little bit of sports and opinion, but I find it's good at providing neutral facts and sources it's knowledge from appropriate experts for its opinion pieces.

It only lacks in providing local level news, where I turn to my country's national broadcaster.

News is a service that determines what’s newsworthy and summarizes it. You can’t do that without bias at some level.

I think what you're describing is the need for RSS feeds. Generally, news outlets categorise their articles neatly so you subscribe with RSS to only headlines, or world events, or whatever. It requires you to have a look around the news site in question and setup RSS correctly.

The other neat thing is that you can read all your RSS feeds (ie multiple news sites) in one reader and there are tons of custom RSS apps.

I share your disdain for gossip and mainstream money grab promo. And ads. My god how much do ads suck.

I recommend news agencies* like Reuters, AP, and AFP. If you want to just get pure news.

*News agencies are companies that primarily sell news to other companies like CNN.

NPR News is probably what you're looking for. sports and celebrity stuff is relegated to the Culture section, which is its own separate thing (although there are a couple of music stories that seem to have been misplaced). here is the RSS feed for the News section: https://feeds.npr.org/1001/rss.xml

I've had great experiences with reading socialist news sites. They tend not to care about 'the spectacle' and don't like ads. Although you still have to avoid the ones like WSWS who just use it as a platform to call other socialists 'pseudo-left'.

Side note: There's a great famous analysis of the US media in the book Manufacturing Consent. You can find a PDF online, but at the very very very least you should read the Wikipedia summary. It explains the reasons why media organisations almost inevitably have some of these biases and bullshits.

Id probably use AP (Associated Press) since they seem to provide the least biased and most fact based reporting. However looking at their front page right now I see minimal content involving celebrities so it might not be your cup of tea.

All media are biased. Some are open about their bias (communist media) and some are not (Wikipedia says it's "neutral" but there's a catch). Western media are all very polular and one-sided so I recommend reading english.news.cn.

Every news agency will have an inherent bias. There is no such thing as purely objective news without a perspective. However, you can learn to identify the biases, cross reference news with different sources, especially ones from different countries to see other perspectives, and then think about the topics yourself to get a deeper understanding.

1440 is what I use. It's literally bare-bones news articles devoid of any opinion, just facts. They cover both US and international news, and have small culture and sports blips that aren't click-baity. And it's emailed to you every day. :)

AlJazeera

I like Axios because it's short form but has extended versions of I find it interesting enough to learn more.

For US news, I really like readtangle.com.

I really wish there was a news source with coverage weighted by humanitarian impact.

That might actually be too far in the other direction for what you're thinking of, though. Most political news wouldn't be there, just because it's hard to draw a direct line objectively to the impact it has. Many sites provide categories and filters, so maybe just using those more would be a start.

DW gets my vote

Generally just use multiple sources, I used Ground News for quite a while.

Every news outlet will have their biases, that is completely normal everyone has biases, even when you have multiple people reviewing the content, only a fraud will tell you they're completely unbiased. So just seek multiple sources, preferably from also multiple countries and languages when applicable.

I like to listen to NPR's up first. They don't have too much time to editorialized. I'll then go to AP or Reuters if I want to follow up on something.

All the “news” people care about is clicks so you will read their ads. That is why they cover Trump so much so you will outrage click. Case in point, look at HuffingtonPost.com It is a left-leaning outrage bait website. They no longer care about actually reporting anything. They position themselves as a women-staffed site but if you look, right this very minute, it is about 100 photos of Trump. I agree it is getting old, but they are all doing it. Real news? You just have filter through the shitshow of 2024 journalism.

Before cable news and before there was such an appetite for political news, real news sources were very diverse. Every newspaper had a sports section and an entertainment section. Also opinion was in the opinion or op-ed section. Nowadays I'm more leary of news sources that are strictly political news. Everyone has a Washington DC correspondent. Lots of news sites will buy all of their news outside of DC from a wire service or even sometimes their story is "reporting" what another agency is reporting. Maybe I'm just old and set in my ways but I prefer the traditional well rounded sources. Others just seem cheap and have an agenda

Short and to the point, with sources. Headlines grouped by categories

https://newsasfacts.com/

mintpressnews, the grayzone

I like allsides.com