There's no such thing as a good news source. They are all biased. The best option is using multiple news sources, ideally ones that are fairly balanced (NPR, AP) as well as biased ones, as well as foreign news sources about America. For example I really like reading BBC news about the US and Al Jazeera.
Financial Times, The Guardian, Reuters are usually pretty good. There might be some bias somewhere, or a weird opinion piece (clearly labeled as such) but they are honest reporting outlets that don't outright lie, and fix any mistakes that might have slipped in.
Reuters, the AP, and Bloomberg are my go-to news sources. People who are paid a lot by a few customers to produce accurate news, rather than people who are paid a little by a lot of people to produce an entertainment product.
I would first begin with categories. On the bottom is video/TV news. Radio can be OK. Print is usually far ahead of the other two.
I don't think there are any good sources on an absolute scale. Some sources are better than other in certain arenas, etc. I am willing to look into comparisons/analyses of things that have significantly higher signal to noise ratio. But comparing two news sources that are poor in almost every criterion is pointless.
It's like comparing VB[1] with early PHP. They're both poor languages.
[1] Once one of the top used programming languages in the world
I wish I had an answer. Good news sources are usually a case of: I know it when I see it. Once you read enough you can tell good shit from bad shit. Shows depth of knowledge, rigor, both sides (if there is an actual legitimate other side), a slant toward neutral verbiage, according to <reputable source>..., <reputable source> reports ..., etc. I wish this could be passed on to others. Good news sources have "it"
I think there is such an massive sea of information that you can tell any story you want with cherry-picking and aggressive call to action flame-bait verbiage.
My news-savy neighbour's strategy was to combine several sources, Channel 4[0], Al Jazeera, <can't remember> and sheepishly, RT (this was mid-2000's). He rationalised the last one as not being a reliable source, but as a way of seeing what others weren't covering. Al Jazeera is great for anything outside Qatar's interest and their early days included actually talking to real Israelis which was something not seen in most of the Middle East at that time.
It's much better if you can get an outside perspective. The right wing papers in the UK were selling Brexit as the sunlit uplands. The leading right wing paper in Canada, the Globe & Mail, called Brexit the height of stupidity. Judge for yourself which sources were better.
Double down on external sources with that second language that you've been meaning to learn. Lazy propaganda doesn't cross language barriers very well, so it stands out - almost as much as promoted content in English on a non-English Reddit sub. (but first, learn the words for "wounded" and "killed" as they are in half the headlines)
Sources change, too. The BBC used to strive for impartiality. Now, their national news spouts the government line, but the regional news hasn't got the memo and regularly runs critical pieces. I think the World Service is still it's own unit.
follow the money and find sources funded by the kind of people you would also fund.
unbiased news is as meaningful as speaking without an accent. everybody has one. so follow the money and pick ones that are funded by people that have ethics which match your own.