>>38
Yes, BBC is state-owned. It is NOT, however, supposed to be state-controlled. They are forbidden by their charter from being politically influenced, though how meaningful that is in practical operation is questionable. It is paid for by license fees paid for by television and radio owners.
PBS is non-profit corporation which receives public funding (though very little nowadays) as well as tax-deductible donations from many sources, including corporate interests and charitable foundations (which of course have their own agendas). NPR is the same.
In these cases the primary aim is NOT "to make $$," as you put it. Obviously, none is free from influence, but they all provide far better (more comprehensive, at least) news coverage than the major U.S. networks and CNN do.
Other good source include some (mostly foreign) newspapers. I personally like The Guardian and the Daily Mail. Although they each have an editorial bias (all sources do, after all, and at least papers tend to be honest about it), I find that you can get a good perspective on issues if you read enough of them and don't restrict yourself to those of a single viewpoint. The Christian Science Monitor seems to be one of the better domestic papers (its ownership notwithstanding).
The major domestic media (both broadcast and print), PBS and NPR aside, nearly all have a problem with regard to giving too much focus to trivial domestic stories and not enough to important international stories. By way of example, I was really infuriated in the immediate aftermath of the Wenchuan earthquake that CNN was more interested in covering not only MORE mindless blather about the Democratic primary race, but also fluff pieces such as one about prom fashions, than in covering the quake (I was especially infuriated, because of my personal interest in the story: worry for my cousin, who is visiting southwestern China, though thankfully not in the immediate vicinity of the quake, I eventually determined). The only domestic media outlet which gave much coverage at all to the situation before evening was NPR.
If you are looking for a source entirely free of bias, you won't find it, because it doesn't exist. You have to learn to take that into account, think critically, and make up your mind accordingly (preferably after reading, listening to, and/or watching accounts from multiple viewpoints), rather than just accepting whatever is relayed at face value. That's what separates men from sheep.
In b4 tl;dr