You list three left-leaning news organisations, and expect their biases to cancel out? Wouldn't they reinforce each other?
But this is not about right/left anymore - the scary fact (and becoming patently obvious to more and more people) is the fact that all "mainstream" media is pro-establishment (whether it is left or right is less important). That's why outlets like Breitbart, warts and all, have been gaining so much popularity.
Breitbart isn't the anti-NYT, it's the anti-Daily Kos.
Pretty much the only readable right wing media is foreign - but if he had suggested The Economist or the Financial Times you probably would have called them left-leaning too...
If you're after other right-wing UK publications you could try the Daily Telegraph or the Spectator.
I could not believe my eyes when I saw The Economist devoting a full page to Trump's badly-fitting suits and overly-long ties, but musing over Clinton's numerous corruption scandals, because she is the preferred globalist candidate.
I am sad that even The Economist has fallen - I have been a subscriber for 25 years. Perhaps not much longer.
Almost any combination will omit some political stance. I don't believe that political viewpoints are binary, or even that they vary only along a single dimension.
I can't go to CNN (what most on the "right" would consider "left") most days without seeing some headline about Trump unaccompanied by a headline about Hillary, in what I can presume is an attempt to be "balanced". The headlines are crafted to make things look equally revelatory. But when you read the articles you find that one is a serious strike (saying shocking things on a mic), and the other is usually a non-story, ie. leaked emails showing the candidate saying pretty much exactly what their public stance has been all along.