Personally, I like following a few diverse news feeds on Gnu Social, and if a story interests me, then go on google news and read a story from a few sources in different countries. I live in the USA and our news is very much controlled/censored.
Which is one of the reasons I do not use Twitter. They wield a great deal of power, including the explicit disallowing of archives of deleted tweets[0], aka they will block you from using their service if you attempt to (publicly) archive information transmitted across it.
It's like erasing logs from a program that has side-effects, or heck, even the "right" to be forgotten[1]. I dislike the idea that such power to destroy information is granted explicitly to any entity.
[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/12/an-interview-with-the-anon...
[1]: I understand this is a contentious topic, but I think that society should accept that people are capable of change, rather than having us whitewash our pasts to appear as if we were always however we currently are. Those who forget their pasts are doomed to not respect or appreciate how both individuals and society can radically alter their courses of actions and ideals over time. It truly is as bad as erasing the bad things groups of people have done in the past.
A quick script that could do this with a few people and store the info locally might be a good idea, then we'd take this out of the hands of Twitter. Maybe a little PyQt GUI that can sit in your tray and scrape twitter accounts or watch via their websocket API and notify you when a tweet is deleted.
Not that the traditional news media is any better. Brexit would never have happened without News International. And in Italy Berlusconi was his own media support.
Also this: http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/britain-television...
Every single story has to be sensational, has to be "crazy", or "unbelievable". Everything has to be a show with music, sound effects and cool teasers.
Nowadays, there are more options: some news program air earlier (7pm for example), some are shorter (20minutes), etc. But the key is that there is no ads either in the middle or around the program. From my point of view, this is the difference that is driving this race to the sensational.
I know about BBC News in the UK, and in France, there are now 4, and soon, 5 (BFMtv, ITele, LCI, France 24, France Info).
You don't have images, but you'd surprised how many things happen in the world at once...
(Live streams also exist, both "unofficially", and legally but geo-restricted on Livestation, apparently.)
PBS and NPR are the only American sources on TV I considered fairly comparable in tone and depth to news programs in other countries.
Currently there is a lot "lulz Trump", "wtf hillary" and "trololo brexit" in between. So it is a bit more sensationalized then else.
For another example, listen to news on your local NPR station. You might get a feel for the presenter's opinion, but most of the information is simply information. That is much more near the 'flavor' of news here.
The main news channel in France: http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/live-video/
We have reporters on "respected" shows sensationalizing flooding in canoes! [1]
They love to divide us based on race, sex, whatever, but the data doesn't support their claims of crisis. And we gobble it up.
PS: is that WP figure still accurate or has it gone up?