My number one source of world news is the BBC web-site, and for TV I watch the BBC4 news at 7pm GMT. I augment this with Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar and has annoyed most Arab states by having truly investigative reporters. It also carries a load of coverage on lesser countries. For printed news I read the Economist, formerly a British publication but now owned by Time. For humourou treatment of serious political happenings in Britain I read Private Eye, the most sued publication in the world. (most litigants, many of them annoyed by being poked fun at, suddenly decide to drop their case, either for fear Private Eye will reveal even more details on them or because they suddenly realise that the best defense against libel is to prove it is the truth, and Private Eye has proof!)

Something I noticed prior to the Reagan presidency, which brought us the end of the fairness doctrine enforced by the FCC, was that truth and facts have a liberal bias.

I agree with the chart for the most part. My criticism would be only that the far left doesn't need to manufacture "alternative truth", it only needs to throw a spin on actual facts.

I am pleased to see that my sources are nearly neutral. It's nauseating the way some in the media promote divisiveness and rancor. Honestly, I wonder if the most diametrically opposed sources are actually colluding to keep people ignorant and protect and project corrupt influence over our government.

One of our big problems is that we have essentially lost the Fourth Estate for investigative reporting, and now have to rely on the Fifth Estate to leak the news we need to keep tabs on our Politicians and what they do. The inherent problem with this is the highly suspect nature of the Fifth Estate. That said, they do, on occasion report the news we need to hear.

I find the whole Russia / Hillary / election scandal fascinating. My take on it is:

1. Much of the anti-Hillary reporting was true and would have never come out to "popular" media if the Russians did not investigate and report it. I feel they, very mistakenly, also reported a bunch of stupid nonsense which diminished the public acceptability of their efforts (such as the child porn in pizza shop basement story). I think they were simply trying anything to destroy Hillary so Trump would win.

2. The Russians succeeded in getting the story out about Hillary, but it ultimately had little effect on her popularity, and because of our Electorial system that is designed to favor the political party in power, she won the votes but lost the election.

3. On a more personal belief, Russia very accidentally has helped us. They exposed to the masses the corruption of the Clintons and many other Politicians. The election of Trump is proving to be a glaringly huge fiasco and is illustrating many of the problems with our collapsing political system. We couldn't fix these problems until we knew they existed. And, we are now a bit more skeptical about our news sources.

Most of these are news sources with an agenda. Just as the one's you mention in your opening. I listen to NPR pretty much 5 days a week as a truck driver and the agenda hypocrisy perception management just spews out all day long. The BBC is like a sister to NPR. I use NPR for breaking news and to keep my bullshit meter fine tuned. These aren't news sources, they're perception management for profit, population brainwashing for the benefit of the establishments control. What that really is, is a list of the people who keep you establishment supporters divided, which leads to governments that never gets anything done for the people of the world. Long live the Empire! Heil!

My favorite news sources are NPRm PBS, followed distantly by MSNBC.

Seems about right for Political News. When it comes to Science News, all sources go with the "popular" story. It does not matter that it misrepresents the topic at all.

I have noticed that local news programs generally do a better job of being unbiased than their Cable / National affiliates.

National enquirer is not unbiased, lol.

I tend to the same. AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC... then supplement and check as needed from my left buddies at Daily Kos. Other than that, I use TPM, Politico, The Hill, Al Jazeera to balance. I never use HuffPo or RawStory for news, only for tips.

In general, the news has become more and more managed ever since Vietnam, where reporters were too honest, turning a generation against a dishonest reason for fighting. The establishment began not just managing reporters, but buying up the bigger news sources. I don't trust many news sources. The Young Turks is trying. Al Jazeera, BBC, Reuters, Google News - Some others help us get a fairly good look at the news.

Interesting.

MSNBC
CNN
WaPo
Politico
The Hill
NPR
NY Times
AP
Reuters

....are my usual go-to news sources.
(Signed,
Proud leftie! ) ?

i follow the peoples daily (english)

I get news from all over the world and use aps to do so. I can agree with your last sentence about your sources. As for those who constantly cry "fake news" today you can see that Donnie got his job done. He doesn't like criticism or to be challenged so he wanted to control your news sources. The bottom line is where does that moron get his news? Certainly you can't believe that the entire world is against him. I know. It's all one worldwide conspiracy against Donald Trump.

If in doubt about any news report there are plenty of reliable fact-checking websites. Two I use are Politi-Fact and WaPo.

I pretty much agree with the chart.

I like British SkyNews, Singapore News, and Aljazeera here in Thailand, and online I like AP news, Google News, BBC news, NPR, Newsweek, Reuters, Popular Science, etc.

I'm a fan of AP, NPR, PBS, WAPO, BBC & NYT. So I'm on solid ground.

I've seen that before, it's interesting. I only really actively pursue npr and aljazera a little. The only news show I really love is Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and that's part comedy, but I love the info.

Al jazeera, bbc, and reuters. Then I gather what the common thread and get my picture.