The are sites like Breitbart, that are partisan but perhaps not quite at the level of just making everything up, seem to have a lot of "news" articles that follow the pattern "Person X said something about Y". I have no reason to think that these articles are lies, and that person X didn't really say something about Y, but in general it's not obvious why anyone should care about what X says, especially when they are not likely to be experts in Y, or even have any inside information about it. They can also be statements taken out of context, or just slips of the tongue, but it's still considered "newsworthy" if it bolsters the partisan case.
It routine that "Person X said Y" stories are misleading. Typically Person X said Y in context Z and leaving Z out changes the meaning substantially.
I've spent a lot of time watching media of all stripes misrepresent politicians of all other stripes by selectively misunderstanding what they said and picking up on pithy but misleading quotes. It is a key part of how the game is played.
For many years, CNN was my default for checking news. Then one day I came across someone who mentioned they follow sites which lean right just to see the difference in how the stories are presented. I then started following Breitbart and now I can see how far to the left that CNN leans. I got the sense that CNN hates Trump. Now that I'm more aware of this, it seems that most mainstream media leans left, so you have to actively seek out a site to find something which leans right.
Reading through Reddit, someone asked what sites you can go to which are like Breitbart but to the left. One answer I thought was interesting was something like "all other news sites."
There are a small number of sites which seem to get pretty close to middle. I would still want to follow a mainstream and right left leaning site to get my bearings though.
I don't want a balanced view of facts. I don't want to balance, for example, the general view of climate scientists that the Earth is warming and it's caused by CO2 emissions, with the views of people who think climate science is a hoax but who know nothing about climate science. I just want the fact-based view of the climate scientists.
However, I do think it's useful to know the narratives which are being spun out of the facts. Then when you have a discussion with someone, you understand how they arrived to whatever crazy beliefs they might have.
"Reading through Reddit, someone asked what sites you can go to which are like Breitbart but to the left. One answer I thought was interesting was something like "all other news sites.""
This is only true from a very rightwing point of view. If you want a real left wing point of view, read actual left wing sites like www.wsws.org a real socialist site. They have not much in common with CNN.
In general, if I am interested in a certain topic I try to read both sides. Russia, China and co. have also english newspapers. Then I usually find out that both sides lie or disconnects facts from context to a point that I think I got a basic understanding of what happened, but are disgusted by all of it and leave.
