I'm gonna answer this one straight:
Even the "alternative" news sources pull news straight off the same news wires as the Establishment media. There has been talk of "citizen reporters" tweeting the news that they eyewitness themselves, but that's not what has been happening; instead even to the degree that does really happen, typically the eyewitnesse's testimony is reported by the Establishment news wires.
What the alternative media has been doing, to the extent that it does, is performing the service of filtering and commenting on the news coming over the Establishment news wires, so that obvious PR is shot down, and real news is inferred sometimes even from sources that are full of obvious lies.
I've commented on this phenomenon several times: often you can glean the truth from a liar's report, because they give themselves away. For example, very early reports coming from Japan explicitly stated that the nuclear reactors were undamaged. I remembered that, but it should have been my first clue to pay attention to the reactors, because "reassurances" (you know, "the check is in the mail", "I'll love you forever", that sort of thing) have a bad habit of being lies.
If the news had been on the up-and-up, it would have said something about "we are unsure at this time about the state of the reactors, which were directly in the path of the tsunami". There would not have been a reassurance, but instead, a cautious and uncertain statement.
That said, some folks who are good at this include:
lewrockwell.com
zerohedge.com (bear in mind this is 99% BAD news, and not all news is bad! In other words, if you read all bad news, it will distort your picture of reality. You should read some more positive and optimistic news to balance your views)
financialsense.com (not all financial news; sometimes financial analysts have to pay attention to real news too because it impacts finance)
Every once in a while, someone will give an exclusive insightful interview to either Alex Jones on the populist right, or the Huffington Post on the gossipy Left. I do not like to link to those sources because they are so full of hysterical, partisan commentary. On rare occasions I have, for lack of better options. I always warn people when I do that, that the link is NOT an endorsement of the source.
I used to read World Net Daily, which still has some good editorials from a variety of columnists that are now too hot for the mainstream media (eg, Pat Buchanan), but its newstream has lost too much credibility over its increasingly hysterical over-the-top claims, such as the one about if you eat soybeans it will make you gay (yes, they actually wrote an article claiming that...and many other equally over-the-top articles like it). I just checked it, and it is now loaded with pointless red herrings and screedy-sounding rants.
