The suggestions here to track down a diversity of sources are good, but I'm increasingly finding that as soon as I've read a source for a while I come to recogn

The suggestions here to track down a diversity of sources are good, but I'm increasingly finding that as soon as I've read a source for a while I come to recognize that it is living inside a filter bubble of its own and start discounting a lot of what I'm reading. The only places I can stick with are the large, old, mainstream media sites: BBC, the Atlantic, the National Post (in Canada). Each of them has biases and a definite editorial policy, but they are all still making some kind of attempt to be objective about the news they choose to report, where by "objective" I mean "they don't ignore obvious facts, flat-out lie about stuff, or deliberately cast stories in terms of abstractions that make them look like something completely different from the way they'd look if you focus on the concretes." They also tend to provide background pieces to major stories that look at multiple perspectives on them. These organizations all have some notion that what they are doing involves helping their readers understand their world. Most other places see their mission primarily in terms of either entertainment or influence. Maybe I'm just old, but keeping those sources for news and following a diversity of people--including a number of mainstream media print reporters and several academics, particularly economists--on Twitter to get personal views of events and ideas seems to be working OK. With regard to "new content", there are only a few new ideas in the world. Every startup story on HN is going to have some similarities. Every science story likewise. Tech stories even moreso. Our ability to communicate has increased by... how much? A million-fold?... in the past thirty years, but our ability to find things to say has stayed the same. It follows from this that most of what we find online is repetition and drivel (including, likely, this comment).