the more this simulation goes on the more important it becomes to know what is (1) a purported fact, (2) purported evidence, (3) a conclusion, and (4) an opinion.
From there, you then have to do the work to evaluate the (1) quality of the purported evidence, (2) congruence of the purported evidence with the purported facts, (3) the strength of the connection of the conclusion given in light of the evidence and facts reviewed, and (4) the quality and merits of the opinion in light of the conclusion (assuming it's well supported by quality evidence supporting facts). The stronger the evidence, the more evidence, the overlap of the evidence with the stated fact should lead to the logical conclusion. Then we evaluate the merits of the opinion which often explains what to do next, or what might the ramifications be under the circumstances.
Evidence strength depends on a number of factors - direct interviews with people who were there, testimony under oath, documents filed with courts, original source documents or videos, these are all prime examples of great evidence. a simple statement from someone that a fact is true is terrible evidence, and borders on a full collapse of fact, evidence and conclusion, even if one person states the purported fact, and another draws the conclusion and opines on it.
most on air live video news channels offer opinion at best or a feigned attempt at the full 1-4 process above because production of those programs is pretty inexpensive if you can focus on opinion. Often times opinion has its place, especially when facts are fairly well agreed upon and established (the collective can often times do this so 1-2 can be skipped). but at it's worst, 1-2 are skipped and we are left hearing conclusions and opinions only without agreed upon facts based on quality evidence.
in addition, plenty of people have an agenda and can promote their views through the appearances of journalism through online platforms. both of these phenomena have crippled us in terms of accessing "news".
the explosion of access to video streaming and the inexpensive cost of having a streaming channel makes it triply worse, very little evidence, facts stated and off to the races with bat shit crazy conclusions and opinions.
left leaning traditional outlets (print magazines and newspapers) are not immune from this degradation and collapsing of facts, evidence, conclusion and opinion. but the left leaning outlets have held on to the values of quality journalism for a lot, lot longer than many conservative outlets. Now, there are conservative outlets I'm sure that are of a like mind with regard to the quality of journalism even if ideologies are not shared. But I don't know many.
This NPR thing is an example of that, at least with respect to one person's view.
In the end though, news consumption and remaining a free person in that endeavor requires rigor, intelligence, evaluative skills, and independent thought and a willingness to dedicate yourself to get your news from a diverse set of outlets. you have to actively participate in the evaluation of evidence, its connection to the stated fact, the combined support of the conclusion and then the opinion (including the bias of the speaker).
I don't think many can do this.