A no-nonsense guide to finding real information in a world that really doesn’t want you to have it.
Let me paint you a picture.
It’s 7:43am. You’re standing in the kitchen in yesterday’s socks, waiting for the kettle to boil, and you open your phone to “catch up on the news.” Two minutes later, you’re scrolling through the same four stories you saw last night, repackaged slightly differently, written with the kind of breathless urgency usually reserved for people who’ve just discovered a house fire.
Nothing has actually changed. No new information has entered the world. And yet, somehow, you feel slightly more anxious than you did when you woke up.
That, my friend, is the news working exactly as designed.
I’m not going to go full tin-foil hat on you. I’m not asking you to believe that everything is a lie and that the lizard people are running Reuters. But I do think most of us have quietly accepted, somewhere in the back of our minds, that the media we consume is… managed. Curated. Owned, in both the literal and figurative senses of the word. And that the line between “informing the public” and “keeping the public suitably distracted and commercially stimulated” has become so blurred that you’d need a very powerful microscope to find it.
The question isn’t whether mainstream media has problems. At this point, that’s like asking whether the Titanic had a slight moisture issue. The question is: what do you actually do about it?
This is that article.
First, A Brief Word On Why This Matters
Before I hand you a list of websites and disappear, I want to spend a moment on something that rarely gets said plainly: the structure of modern media is not an accident.
Six corporations control approximately 90% of what Americans read, watch and hear. In the UK, the picture isn’t dramatically better. Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, the Daily Mail Group, and Reach PLC between them account for a vast portion of national newspaper circulation. The BBC, whatever you think of it, is ultimately answerable to a government that appoints its board. Channel 4 has been under sustained political pressure for years. And the “independent” press? Often not as independent as it sounds, particularly when you start following the advertising money or the ownership structures buried in Companies House.
None of this means every journalist working at a large outlet is corrupt or dishonest. Most aren’t. Most are trying. But they operate within systems that have financial incentives, political relationships, and editorial priorities that are not always aligned with yours as a reader. Stories get spiked. Angles get softened. Sources with power get more gentle treatment than sources without it. This is not conspiracy. This is just how institutions work.
The antidote isn’t paranoia. It’s information literacy. And it starts with broadening your sources.
The Bias-Checking Toolkit: Know What You’re Reading Before You Read It
Before we get to the good stuff, here’s something worth having in your back pocket permanently.
Ground News is one of the more quietly brilliant tools on the internet. It processes over 30,000 news articles a day and groups them by story, showing you who’s covering what, and from which end of the political spectrum. The “Blindspot” feature is particularly useful: it highlights stories that are receiving lopsided coverage, so you can see when an entire side of the media is simply not reporting something. That absence, by the way, is often more revealing than anything they actually publish.
AllSides does something similar, offering a media bias chart that rates over 2,400 news outlets on a left-to-right political scale. It’s not perfect (no tool like this ever could be), but it’s useful. The methodology involves crowd-sourced ratings, expert panels, and blind bias surveys, which at least means it’s trying to be honest about its own subjectivity. Use it as a map, not a verdict.
Media Bias/Fact Check is the third leg of this particular stool, rating outlets on both political lean and factual reliability. The combination matters. A source can be factually accurate and still frame the world in a way that serves a particular agenda. Knowing both dimensions gives you a much clearer picture.
None of these tools are oracles. But getting into the habit of asking “who runs this, and what do they want from me?” before you consume a piece of media is, frankly, one of the most important intellectual hygiene habits you can develop right now.
The Investigative Journalism That Mainstream Media Keeps Forgetting to Do
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Bellingcat is the kind of journalism that makes you feel slightly better about the internet. Founded in 2014 by Eliot Higgins, a former finance worker from Shrewsbury who was essentially unemployed and taking care of his kid at home when he started investigating the Syrian civil war from his living room, Bellingcat has become one of the most genuinely impressive investigative operations in the world.
They work almost exclusively through open-source intelligence: satellite imagery, social media posts, Google Maps, publicly available data. No deep-throat sources, no classified briefings. Just extraordinarily diligent people who know where to look. Their findings on the MH17 downing over Ukraine were so thorough that the Dutch-led international investigation later confirmed them. They’ve unmasked Russian intelligence agents, documented war crimes, and created a methodology for citizen journalism that is now taught to journalists, academics, and human rights workers around the world.
One quick note on Bellingcat, in the spirit of information literacy: they do receive funding from organisations including the National Endowment for Democracy and have been criticised in some quarters for their focus on Russian state activities. These are fair things to know. Apply the same critical lens to Bellingcat that you’d apply to anything else. But the methodology is transparent, the evidence trails are published in full, and the work is frequently remarkable. Use it accordingly.
The Intercept was founded in 2014 by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations, with the explicit purpose of doing the journalism that the mainstream press had become too timid, too corporate, or too compromised to attempt. It’s been rocky in places (Greenwald has since departed, loudly), but it still publishes some of the sharpest national security and civil liberties reporting you’ll find anywhere. If you have any interest whatsoever in how governments actually behave when they think no one’s watching, this is required reading.
ProPublica is perhaps the gold standard of modern investigative journalism, and it’s entirely non-profit. It employs over a hundred journalists and has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigations into everything from corporate corruption and healthcare failure to the slow catastrophe of American inequality. It’s US-focused, but if you’re trying to understand how power actually operates in the world’s most powerful country, it’s indispensable. And it’s free.
For UK readers, Byline Times deserves a prominent spot in your bookmarks. It was set up specifically to cover the stories that the mainstream British press either ignores or (in some cases) actively suppresses. They’ve done particularly sharp work on press ownership, political lobbying, and the relationships between the British government and the media organisations that are supposedly holding it to account. There’s a certain cheerful audacity to the whole enterprise that I rather enjoy.
The Rise of the Individual: Substack and the Newsletter Revolution
Something quietly remarkable has been happening in journalism over the last few years, and I don’t think it’s been fully reckoned with yet.
Individual writers, many of them former staff journalists at major outlets, have been quietly building direct-to-reader publications that are, in some cases, reaching hundreds of thousands of paying subscribers. No editors spiking stories. No advertisers to placate. No proprietor with a political agenda or a social circle that includes half the Cabinet.
Substack is the main platform for this, hosting over 500,000 creators and somewhere north of 40 million subscribers globally. The model is simple: you write, readers pay, no one in between tells you what you can and can’t say. The platform itself has had some controversy around its content moderation policies (or lack thereof), and some writers have migrated to alternatives like Ghost or Beehiiv as a result. But the broader point holds: the infrastructure for independent journalism to reach large audiences now exists, and a growing number of excellent writers are using it.
Matt Taibbi’s Racket News is one of the more prominent examples. Taibbi spent years as one of Rolling Stone’s most celebrated investigative journalists and now runs an independent publication modelled after I.F. Stone’s Weekly, the legendary independent newsletter of the 1950s and 60s. He has nearly 500,000 subscribers and makes significantly more than he did in mainstream media. His work on what became known as the “Twitter Files” investigations broke major stories about how platforms coordinate with government and institutional actors to manage narratives. Whether you end up agreeing with all his conclusions or not, the reporting itself is worth your time.
Bari Weiss’s Free Press has become another significant independent outlet, with around 1.5 million total readers and a focus on contrarian, often uncomfortable takes on politics, culture, and institutional failure. It’s provocative by design, and deliberately so. Again, apply your own critical faculties. But it’s a useful counterweight to publications that have become, shall we say, ideologically predictable.
For something more plainly centrist and balance-obsessed, Tangle is a genuinely unusual thing: a newsletter that presents both left and right perspectives on the same story in a deliberately even-handed way, then tells you what the writer actually thinks. It has an almost comedic commitment to fairness that I find oddly refreshing in the current climate.
Decentralised Platforms: The Fediverse and Beyond
Now we’re getting into territory that will cause approximately 40% of readers to minimise the browser tab and go make a cup of tea. Stick with me.
The centralised social media platforms that most of us use to consume news are, at their core, advertising businesses. Their job is not to inform you. Their job is to keep you on the platform as long as possible so that advertisers can reach you. That means the algorithm is not curating what’s most important or most true. It’s curating what’s most engaging, which, as you’ve probably noticed, tends to mean what’s most outrage-inducing.
The alternative to this is decentralised social media: platforms that run on open-source protocols, hosted across many independent servers, where no single corporation controls the feed or the rules.
Mastodon is the most established of these. It’s part of what’s called the “fediverse” (short for federated universe), a collection of interconnected servers all running on a shared protocol called ActivityPub. Think of it like email: you can sign up with any provider, but you can communicate with everyone else. There’s no algorithm pushing rage-bait at you. No ads. No billionaire deciding what you see. It’s not perfect, and it’s not as convenient as Twitter, but it has a large and active community of journalists, academics, scientists, and thoughtful people who use it as a primary information channel.
Nostr is a newer, more radically decentralised protocol. The name stands for “Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays” which is either endearingly nerdy or terminally uncool, depending on your threshold. The key difference from Mastodon is that there’s no server structure at all: messages are cryptographically signed by users and relayed through a network of independently run servers. No one can deplatform you, because there’s no platform. It has attracted a significant community of people interested in censorship-resistant communication and is worth knowing about even if you never use it personally.
Odysee is worth bookmarking as a video platform built on the LBRY blockchain protocol. It’s a YouTube alternative that hosts a lot of independent journalism and commentary, with particular depth in areas that YouTube’s content moderation tends to be aggressive about. The quality ranges wildly from outstanding to outright unhinged, so bring your critical thinking, but the infrastructure itself is genuinely useful.
The Aggregators: Consuming Intelligence More Efficiently
If you’re a busy person who can’t spend three hours a day reading independent newsletters and decentralised social feeds (and who can, really), there are some excellent aggregator and curation tools that can do a lot of the work for you.
GIJN (Global Investigative Journalism Network) is an international network of investigative journalism organisations that publishes resources, guides, and links to the best investigative work from around the world. If you want to know what serious investigative journalists are actually working on and how they do it, this is the place.
The Conversation is an interesting one: articles written by academics and researchers, edited by journalists. The result is content that is substantially more rigorous than typical news commentary, still readable, and not funded by advertising. It leans academic rather than sensationalist, which is both its strength and occasionally its limitation. For anything requiring genuine expertise, from climate science to economic policy to geopolitical analysis, it’s a reliable port in a very stormy information sea.
Tortoise Media was set up by former BBC journalist James Harding with the explicit intention of doing slow, deliberate, membership-funded journalism. The name is the point. In a world where every outlet is sprinting toward breaking news and hot takes, Tortoise takes its time. They focus on long investigations and what they call “ThinkIn” events: open forums where members can join the editorial conversation. It’s a model I find rather elegant.
A Word on Critical Thinking (Which Is Not the Same as Cynicism)
Here’s the bit I feel compelled to add, because I’ve seen what happens when people go down the “mainstream media bad” rabbit hole without this as an anchor.
Information literacy does not mean assuming everything you read in the Guardian or the Times is a lie. It doesn’t mean that every independent newsletter is automatically more truthful than a news organisation with editors and legal oversight. It doesn’t mean retreating into a hermetically sealed alternative media bubble where everyone agrees with you and every inconvenient fact gets explained away as “psyops.”
That way madness lies. Or at minimum, a very tedious social media presence.
What it does mean is developing a set of habits. Ask who funds this. Ask who benefits from this story being told this way. Ask what’s being left out. Ask whether you’re drawn to this because it’s true, or because it confirms something you already wanted to believe. Apply those questions equally to sources you like and sources you don’t.
The goal isn’t to find the One True News Source and outsource your brain to it. The goal is to triangulate. To hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. To be genuinely uncertain sometimes, rather than certainty-shopping until you find an outlet that tells you what you want to hear.
Epistemic humility, as the academics say. Or, as the rest of us might put it: staying genuinely curious, rather than just swapping one certainty for another.
The Short List (Because You’re Probably Going to Skim to This Bit Anyway)
For the skimmers among us, here’s the condensed version. Bookmark these, explore them at your own pace, and apply your brain to everything you find there.
Bias & Context Tools
- Ground News — Multi-source aggregator with blindspot detection
- AllSides — Media bias chart for 2,400+ outlets
- Media Bias/Fact Check — Both bias and factual reliability ratings
Investigative Journalism
- Bellingcat — Open-source investigative journalism
- The Intercept — National security, civil liberties, power
- ProPublica — Non-profit investigative journalism at scale
- Byline Times — Independent UK investigative journalism
- GIJN — Global investigative journalism network
Independent Newsletters & Commentary
- Substack — Browse by topic; find voices that challenge you
- Racket News — Matt Taibbi’s independent journalism
- The Free Press — Bari Weiss; contrarian, provocative, substantive
- Tangle — Left and right perspectives on the same stories
- Tortoise Media — Slow, deliberate, member-funded journalism
Decentralised Platforms
- Mastodon — Federated social network; no algorithm, no ads
- Nostr — Censorship-resistant communication protocol
- Odysee — Decentralised video platform
Academic & Long-Form Analysis
- The Conversation — Experts writing for general audiences
And Finally…
I’ll be honest with you. Writing this piece has reminded me how much I genuinely enjoy the information landscape when I’m navigating it consciously, rather than just letting it wash over me.
There is extraordinary journalism being done right now, by small teams and individuals with almost no resources, on stories that matter enormously. There are writers publishing directly to readers, unmediated, doing better work than many newsrooms with hundred-person staffs. There are tools that can show you, in real time, how the same event is being framed differently depending on which part of the political spectrum is reporting it.
The information is out there. The problem was never scarcity of facts. It was scarcity of the right habits.
You’ve got the habits now. Go build yourself a better picture.
Written by Dominus Owen Markham. If this was useful, pass it to someone who needs it.
Until Next Time
Discover more from Dominus Owen Markham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.