One thing to be aware of is that the titles and headlines of professionally-produced publications are often written by editors rather than authors, and are not a reliable guide to the quality (or even the content) of the article. Dealing with the dross is just part of the cost of finding the gold.
And it's worth noting that headlines have often been "clickbaity" since before there were clicks. Look at the print edition of The Economist. A lot of the heds (in publishing lingo) are plays on words etc. (although the subhead/dek) does tend to be fairly straightforward. Online, their heds tend to be more literal--probably because of SEO.
Very true. That said The Economist newspaper (print edition) is my answer to the OP. The heds are just an example of the talent at their disposal. The paper is expensive but I’ve subscribed for 25 years without a single regret. Their podcasts are now rising to the same quality.
I subscribe as well. The US weekly news magazines never had the depth of The Economist but at least in pre-Internet days they gave you a reasonable summary of important things. But in the past decade they've totally declined into irrelevance. Not even sure what print editions still exist.
I don't read it cover to cover. There's a fair bit of international detail that I just don't find very interesting or relevant but it covers so many things that there's plenty to read about.
I used to get most of my news every week in the US from Time Magazine when it was still a pretty decent weekly. I'm not sure that knowing what's going on by the minute is clearly an improvement. (I do read The Economist now.)
