My only subscription is to the New Scientist, that way I get the science (peer reviewed) before the sensationalists get hold of it and pick out one sentence that they believe proves whatever agenda they are currently pushing. It is surprisingly informative as a general news source as the “social” sciences are well represented, gun crime statistics, polling failures for the Brexit and frog faces victories, discussions on the ramifications for science and social cohesion of said votes as well as the more sciencey science, and they sometimes have pictures of Meerkats.
Cries of bias, usually come from Fruit-loops (hi everybody), or vested interests. I remember a report on the scientists who opposed the consensus on climate change being called bias by some, as it listed the organisations who paid for their research, typically fossil fuel diggers/users, tree cutters, Christian right wing baby killers, and the institute for kitten pies.
It feels a bit left wing but then again, it’s written by intelligent people, and shit, they have the bones. The sports section is shit tho'.
We have a free local paper but that is about the horror of people who do things for free, wanting you to know about them or the baby Jesus, it’s occasionally useful for finding a plumber or starting the fire.