The answer is: Everywhere.
Well, almost everywhere. I definitely stay away from FOX other than to utilize it for polemics. I stay away from Alex Jones and others like him. This is not to say I don't embrace alternative media and I'm not at all hostile to speculation and attempts to construct coherent meta-narratives. But one can get into a lot of trouble when wandering down that road. Different groups pose different types of questions. I appreciate that, but I often reject their answers.
Everything is read critically. I can utilize CBS and CNN but I read them or watch them knowing what they are.
Other sources like AFP or Reuters might be better, but they are still somewhat limited.
I can appreciate World Socialist Website and Lew Rockwell. When it comes to criticising the empire, they're not that different. When it comes to economics and the nature of the 'system' they are polar opposites. They're both right in some ways and they're both dead wrong in others.
More than anything I would say that reading history is what helps me understand and contextualise the news. History teaches me culture and geography, it teaches me about military strategy and science. I learn about religion, philosophy, economics and law.
Then you begin to see patterns and you can more easily detect when news is being driven by ideology or is seeking to hide a factor or factors that would help the reader contextualise the story in a different way.
The Cold War was an interlude. Its conclusion led many to believe the world had entered a new era and that past historical examples and paradigms were obsolete. This is completely erroneous and misguided. More than ever the past is coming alive and patterns are re-emerging. The United States is trying to stop this process of reversion and this must be understood in order to grasp the nature of contemporary geopolitical struggles and tensions.
There are times I can listen to an author being interviewed that would be written off as a 'nut' by the mainstream. And yet, he's making perfect sense because he's connecting thoughts and actions (news) with history. It just happens to be contrary to official narratives being put forward by our government and corporate controlled media.
Other times I can listen to someone being interviewed and I can immediately tell they're either ill-informed or disingenuous. They have an ideological axe to grind they're forcing their interpretive grid on a particular situation. They're convinced of their position and therefore the events 'must' be interpreted in that fashion.
With regard to some economic report about a technology or an industry in South America... again knowing the history in terms of politics and geopolitics will help you understand the nature and importance of the report. At that point you can begin to ask... okay, did the BBC tell the whole story? And you can start poking around and it's not uncommon to find a bit more.
Lots of people do this and there are many websites and publications that have a lot more resources (time and money) than I do. And hence their output is certainly more impressive.
But I'm writing as a Christian and specifically one who is both highly committed to Sola Scriptura and therefore absolutely hostile to Sacralist Constantinian tendencies. This makes my project somewhat unique. It also makes it very unconventional and out-of-the mainstream both in terms of the Church and the culture at large.
My argument is that though my views seem idiosyncratic and beyond the periphery in the 21st century, there is historical and Biblical precedent for what I'm expressing. My hope is that by awakening people to the doctrinal and historical issues they may begin to grasp that contemporary Christianity, even many of its conservative manifestations are in fact expressions of apostasy.