Here's my secret stash:

- https://www.quantamagazine.org - science-y

- https://thebrowser.com - sometimes too intellectual or focused on literature

- https://waitbutwhy.com - sometimes too simple

- https://www.project-syndicate.org - sometimes written by people that are "talkers/politicians" not "doers"

- https://www.gwern.net - The monthly newsletter is great

- https://chinai.substack.com - Chinese Papers and AI news translated

- https://www.ribbonfarm.com - great long form essays

I also got asked a couple of times about starting my own monthly mailing list with the most interesting things I find.

If you'd be interested in receiving it email me at hi[at]ferrucc[dot]io

https://www.quantamagazine.org looks good. Thanks!

you're welcome :)

I can tell you what I do:

1. I don't consume any news from televised sources,

2. I read Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Economist and Foreign Affairs,

3. I'm generally skeptical of everything I read and I try to assume every article's author has many unknown unknowns in their reporting (to counter Gelman Amnesia),

4. Every so often (once a week or so), I read something from a news source I actively distrust just to see what else a nontrivial portion of the population believes about the world.

This isn't perfect, but if you have the free time to do that much reading I think it gets you pretty close to well-rounded. I think the only major way to improve upon this would be to add another major news source from another country for additional foreign perspective (this is why I like The Economist and Financial Times).

Every source of information will be biased, and you have to take that into account by being critical.

I found that the best source for me is The Economist: once per week, written by smart people, with good summaries of anything that is important. Delivered digitally (with an excellent audio version, too).

It is "biased" in the sense that the editors hold a set of opinions and you have to be aware of it. I do not agree with all of their opinions, but I am aware of them. The news useful even if you disagree with their interpretation or recommendations.

Surprisingly, it is the only intelligent and non-sensational news source that I have found.

> "Every source of information will be biased, and you have to take that into account by being critical."

A thousand times this. Bias is everywhere. I think people who say they're looking for an 'unbiased' source of information are really looking for a source of information they can just blindly consume without doing any pesky thinking. And if you're blindly consuming information without thinking, you're allowing someone else to think for you.

I really like their Audio edition: it's a full version of the paper voiced by pro actors.

I don't understand why this isn't more common. I'm already spending 8-hours a day at work, reading stuff or parsing information in some ways. I have found that I have no mental capacity left to read a full newspaper on top of that.

Listening to a podcast while commuting is way less exhausting (to me at least).

I went from The Economist to Foreign Affairs few years ago when Eco became unbearably filled with an agenda. You might want to check FA out.

Can you describe their agenda, or point to a description of it?

It's conspicuously centrist and pro-global-capitalism (see: articles essentially saying "human lives on earth has definitely gotten better under capitalism" (and not explicitly saying "world-average QoL is the correct metric by which to measure progress", nor addressing counterfactual hypotheses), + anti-trump + pretty skeptical of brexit. These are sort of acceptable, manageable biases to my eye: is there more I'm missing?

Everyone has a different level of "acceptable, manageable biases"

The Economist is somehow accused to have a bias in every direction. Some would call it "Ecommunist"pushing a far-left agenda, others decrying a right capitalist ideology.

One of the papers I like reading is the monthly "Le Monde diplomatique".

https://mondediplo.com/

It has in-depth analysis of current events and world topics, and is a nice mix of recent news and long-term stories. I often find myself looking for more information after reading one of their articles, as they often include a lot of references to other topics or events I am not familiar with : it feeds my curiosity this way, and I get to read various news source about one topic.

I think one of the takeaway's from Aaron's piece is that there IS no universally good source of information. That's okay, because the news you need to hear or that actually impacts you will make it's way to you through hearsay. The people you talk to in real life are a good filter. If you like podcasts, there's a nice discussion here http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/11

Hard to go wrong with these two:

- NPR: https://www.npr.org

- Reuters: https://www.reuters.com

They can be a little bit dry sometimes but that's what professional neutral news has to be.

I like also:

- Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com

- And Politico: https://www.politico.com

And finally a financial blog I love, Matt Levine Money Stuff (it's free from his newsletter): http://link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/join/4wm/moneystuff-s...

To be fair, they were replying to a request for news sources..

I'm not entirely sure non-biased publications exist. In a perfect world they would be a thing but in the world of humans quite impossible.

As for my criteria:

- I usually look at who owns the publication to get a sense of its positions in terms of important global affairs.

- Are they reporting all the facts or simply "lying by omission" (which tends to be a very popular tactic these days, especially when it comes to geopolitical topics).

- Balance, or what I like to call gray journalism. Because nothing is totally black or white in life.

I'm of the opinion that the Internet simply killed traditional journalism, because now anybody (given the time) can go and check the facts for any given story published by the media.

If you're into radio, PRI's The World (https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world) and the BBC World Service (https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldserviceradio) both do a great job covering world news, as well as the Associated Press, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the Christian Science Monitor.

You should check out allsides[0]. It's a new aggregator that presents news from the left, right, and center. They're constantly reevaluating what side of the spectrum news sources land on. They post about their findings and explain why they consider a new source left, center, or right.

[0]: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

You could possibly automate an aggregator that takes the various sources, see what at least all of them agree on and then spit that out as 'just the facts'.

That algorithm empowers any source to suppress an inconvenient fact by making a baseless assertion of the contrary.

Since 1998: https://aldaily.com/

I like business news in general. You make money in finance by being right and people in the industry will gravitate towards accurate sources by definition. In general, business news tends to have the best qualified hosts as well, who can actually understand macroeconomic concepts.

There is no source that ticks all boxes, you have to resign yourself to being well informed about a small number of things and become active in that community, for all other things simply take it on trust and be wary.

I have not found something like this on the internet, but if it exists I'd love to know about it. Otherwise, books are the only place that fill out those qualifications.

A few suggestions: academic papers, books, documentaries (including indie produced ones on Youtube), radio shows/podcasts.

There is no such thing as unbiased... fact-based is often as close as you will get, which is increasingly rare.

> What is a good source of information?

Pamphlets. Road signs. Safety labels.

As a general criteria, I would add "promotes action". What good is information if it doesn't bring any change?