I think putting up with the occasional crazed ideologies is worth it, if it means the rest of the articles acknowledge politicians are usually wrong, regardless

I think putting up with the occasional crazed ideologies is worth it, if it means the rest of the articles acknowledge politicians are usually wrong, regardless of the party. That's why I read articles from the Reason Foundation (https://reason.com/latest/ https://reason.com/latest/), unless there's something up their alley, like politician legalizing hard drugs for sex workers, or something crazy like that, they have no issue with calling politicians out on their nonsense, regardless of the party. The next best option is finding a news source that at least has journalists with competing viewpoints. It does mean for every article calling out nonsense, you'll get another one supporting it, but at least they aren't ignoring any issues they find inconvenient. The best I've found for this is The Hill. (https://thehill.com/news/ https://thehill.com/news/) Sure, one of their contributors took CNBC at their word on the quality of life ranking (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5402709-vermont-quality-life-ranking-cnbc/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5402709-vermont-qua...) with no thought put into whether analyzing policy is an effective metric of actual life quality, but they also publish articles from contributors that call out news sources for similar rhetoric.