I would vote The Financial Times or The Economist.

+1 to FT. I have been reading FT for a while now and have completely stopped reading NYT or other publications. They seem to have solid reporting and are pretty unbiased IMO.

Consider this another vote for the Financial Times and the Economist. I am subscribed to both, and Foreign Affairs.

You have to be aware of their biases, though.

If I recall correctly both predict the collapse of France, like clockwork, every few years (especially because French policies are slightly more socialist and both publications are super business).

And of course, both look down on non-Anglosphere countries, in general :-)

> both look down on non-Anglosphere countries

I don't know where you get that from. Any examples?

> You have to be aware of their biases, though.

A point of view is not a bias. The Economist was founded as a pro-market liberal (classically liberal) publication. A Marxist would consider that a bias I guess?

https://spectator.co.uk is decent

The Spectator is usually classified as centre-right. Amongst my peers ("creative" millennials in London) that makes it a bit of a non-starter, unfortunately.

I think it's a mostly respectable magazine with a high degree of journalistic integrity (e.g. the recent High Court case). They have some fantastic contributors. Like any publication there are some that are a bit "out there" for my tastes, Delingpole comes to mind, but they pale in comparison to some of the opinion pieces the Guardian publishes. But because of its mild association with the word "right", I know many of my peers would be unpalatable.

How about The New Statesman? Would that be centre-left?

Certainly left-leaning. I've heard Stephen Bush (their political correspondent) is quite reliable on Labour issues, but I don't read it much these days. It went right down in my estimation in terms of journalistic integrity after the Roger Scruton debacle.

The idea that someone would suggest the Spectator—more reactionary troll factory than magazine at this point—as a response to someone who feels the NYT is pushing too much of an agenda is absolutely hilarious.

To be clear, I generally accept bias. It's just the way things are.

My complaint about the NYT and many other news sources is absurd combination of a hyper-specific and rapidly-changing set of beliefs, along with brutal enforcement of those beliefs.

My challenge to you: write down your beliefs on a controverial topic (on paper). Wait 6 months and pick up the NYT. My prediction: they will be in the process of canceling someone for those same beliefs, and you will shred the piece of paper out of fear.

OK, maybe that's an exaggeration. But I wouldn't be shocked if it was too close for comfort.

Have you read it recently? There certainly are trollish (but not insane) rightwingers like Rod Liddle and Toby Young, and Taki must be published solely to wind up left-wingers. But the main editorial slant is basically Cameron-conservative/New Labour types like Nick Cohen, Katy Balls, Isabel Hardman, Matthew Paris etc.

It's definitely right-of-center and doesn't mind cocking a snook at left-wing holy cows, but it's not a "reactionary troll factory".

Yes, I've read it.

Magazines publishing centre-right views are fine. But if what you are seeking is a news publication that doesn't push a particular agenda, then The Spectator is pretty much as far away from it as you can get outside of Pravda.

You're right, of course, that it publishes some mild centre-right commentators with uncontroversial conservative views. That doesn't really compensate, in my view, for the provision of space to writers like Liddle and Young. These particular people are reactionary trolls; their writing contains little other than disinformation deliberately intended to stoke culture-war nonsense, and they're too smart to believe what they write. This stuff does little more than make society worse for everyone.

But I'd say regardless of your views on individual commentators or the overall quality of the publication – if someone wants to avoid the NYT because it is campaigning too much, then directing them to The Spectator is laughable.

The Spectator routinely publishes misinfo.

Would you like to provide an example? Or, better, several examples to establish a pattern that couldn't also be found in, for example, The Guardian or NYT?

Any of their coverage of trans issues.

I haven't said the Guardian or NYT is better.

You’re not a fan of Debbie Hayton then? Although I can’t imagine what her motivations would be for spreading misinformation about trans issues. Perhaps she and other Spectator writers have views trans activists disagree with, but that’s not the same as misinformation.

Debbie Hayton spreads misinfo. She does so because she gets validation form other transphobes.

It's not "disagreement" -- they regularly publish easily checkable objectively false information.

That's simply false.

I really like the Economist their espresso format is a pleasant read in the morning.

Right now I am subscribed to zero paid news outlets. Sad.

Watching this thread for suggestions. I'm thinking international, as foreign outlets will be less susceptible to American fashions.