2

I'm looking for a news site that gives a reasonable representation of the actual important events going on in the world as a whole. All of my current news sources, even relatively respectable ones like the Atlantic, are very euro-centric, prone to click bait and like to push biased little editorial pieces on issues that are small and often sensational.

Using the Atlantic again(Which occasionally has some brilliant journalistic articles), here the titles on the home page's More Top Stories section:

  • A New Origin Story for Dogs
  • The Graying of Rural America
  • Where Republican's Stand on Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet
  • Do We Need Zoos?
  • Mobile is Eating Media, and Facebook is Eating Mobile
  • The Black Journalists and the Racial Mountain
  • Teagon and Sara, Scientists of the Love Song
  • The Missing Piece in the Debate Over College Costs

As you can see, from an objective perspective, dogs, gorillas and facebook take a much larger portion than should be given based on almost any objective criteria of general importance. In other words, this homepage is dominated by clicks and little else.

I had only been vaguely aware of the conflicts in the Congo for instance, yet I can remember quite clearly the circus with Monica Lewinski. I want a news source that can correct this, by spending more time on big things like major wars, the federal reserve, monetary policy, countries that aren't just the US, etc.

Is there a news source that organizes stories by importance, in some reasonably objective way, with as little political bias as possible?

closed as off-topic by Sam I am Jun 2 '16 at 21:09

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – Sam I am
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    This is a shopping question, It is also opinion-based, since "bias" often feels like something of a relative term, and because what is and isn't worth reporting on is very subjective too – Sam I am Jun 2 '16 at 21:15
  • 2
    If the publication needs to pay the electric bill, assume it's full of clickbait. Also assume everything is biased. Bias isn't necessarily bad...as long as it's transparent. – user1530 Jun 2 '16 at 21:58
  • @blip If it's just pushing stories from reuters, associated press, cnn, bbc, the Atlantic, etc. via links, it's overall costs could potentially be quite low, even with some editorial judgment on which articles are of merit. Bandwidth and servers costs are quite low these days, and are proportional to traffic anyway - so theoretically, your costs will be proportional to your revenues. – wedstrom Jun 2 '16 at 22:02
  • @SamIam I suppose. I could remove the requirement for unbiased, and replace it with "some published metric" instead, but it would still be a shopping question... – wedstrom Jun 2 '16 at 22:03
  • News services are business like the others, and try to cater to their customers; the "importance" of news is directly linked to the expected number of clicks (or, to put it more professionally, to the interest of the public). If you want to get a global view, you have two options: a) access through internet local media from other countries/areas of different locations or b) find a site with geographical sections and go through the "Africa", "Asia", etc... sections. Probably the best idea is to begin with both and find the combination that gives you the coverage you want. – SJuan76 Jun 2 '16 at 23:18

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.