[nicharesuk]

I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear, I'm looking for as close to non-biased as possible. As I layed out in my numbered list I'm completely aware that there are no unbiased sources. To claim I don't read the news is just attacking and not really helpful to my legitimate desire to find news sources that aren't just pundits of organized interests.

[egonschiele]

Okay, then I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. It sounds to me like, you have tried a bunch of news sources, and none of them are as unbiased as you would like, so you would prefer the news not exist at all than exist in this state.

Or maybe you are saying, you don't want to pay for the news unless it matches your expectations -- but you DO want the rest of us to pay for it so it continues to exist?

[nicharesuk]

I would say, like I said, that wikipedia has been my go to and what I support because it has a HUGE reference list for each article. My question is simple where are the news sources that list as many sides of an issue and list all their sources that they pull from?

I don't know where you are getting this notion that I want others to pay for something so then I can deem if it's worthy for me to pay for...

[egonschiele]

I mean, I'm with you 100%. I don't know why the news doesn't do a better job of presenting both sides of the story. I get around this by getting news from a lot of sources. It doesn't take very long either. My morning news intake:

- minnesota public radio (my local) - economist news briefing - the journal (from WSJ) - WSJ tech news briefing - up first (NPR) - the daily (nytimes).

I would LOVE to add a more conservative one into the mix here. I'm just saying, there's a difference between people updating wikipedia vs people who have a full time job that involves covering the news, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That is worth paying for. FWIW I also pay for wikipedia. But I also pay for nytimes, washington post, and the star tribune.