The honest answer first: there aren't any. Every outlet chooses what to cover, whom to quote and which word to use, and those choices carry a view. What actually exists is a spectrum — and some sources sit much closer to the middle of it than others, while also getting their facts right.
Most lists answering this question name the same handful of wire services and stop there. That is not wrong, but it hides the reason. Reuters and the Associated Press sell their copy to newspapers on the left and the right simultaneously, so neutral framing is a commercial requirement rather than a virtue. Understanding that incentive tells you more than the ranking does.
It also tells you where the incentive stops applying. The same wire service can be close to centre on domestic politics and clearly positioned on a foreign conflict, because the audience buying that coverage is different. Bias is not a fixed property of a masthead — it moves by topic.
So the practical move is to stop hunting for one trustworthy source and instead learn to place any source quickly. The section below is how.
These are two different questions and most tools only answer the first. A source can have a strong political lean and still report facts correctly; another can be scrupulously neutral in tone and still get things wrong. AllSides, for instance, rates political lean and explicitly does not rate accuracy. Always ask both questions.
Instead of reading further down a page to judge whether it is trustworthy, open new tabs and see what other sources say about the publisher. This is the technique professional fact-checkers use, and research from the Stanford History Education Group found it works substantially better than reading the source itself more carefully.
Ownership and funding shape coverage more reliably than any stated editorial policy. Check who owns the outlet, whether it is advertiser-funded, subscriber-funded or backed by a foundation, and whether it discloses that clearly.
A source that publishes corrections is not less reliable — it is more reliable. Outlets with no corrections page have either never made a mistake or do not admit to them, and only one of those is plausible.
Any single number compressing a publication into one digit throws away most of what matters. Use ratings to decide where to look more closely, not as a verdict. That is why every score on this site links through to the distribution of votes behind it.
Rated "Centre" by community vote and ordered by accuracy score. These are crowd ratings, not an editorial verdict — every entry links through to the full distribution of votes behind its score, including the people who disagree.
Not enough centre-rated sources have cleared the five-review minimum yet to publish a ranking here. Rather than pad this list out, we would rather leave it empty until the data is real.
Rate a source and help fill it in →No single rating service should be treated as settled, including this one. Each uses a different method and they disagree in interesting places — the disagreements are usually more informative than the scores. Our guides lay out what each service is good at and where the published criticism of it lands.
The bias map plots every rated source on the spectrum at once. Free, no account needed.