Note that all those stories you're referencing were all broken by the papers I listed. The breitbarts of the world usually just repackage what actual news organizations publish with ideological slant.
Note that all those stories you're referencing were all broken by the papers I listed.
To complicate your linear model of news quality, the National Enquirer routinely publishes batshit nonsense ("Rafael Cruz murdered JFK" and "Scalia was assassinated by a hooker", recently) and has also broken several major real stories nobody else would touch.
The Graunaid is even harder to fit on your line; decent-quality and mostly worth reading agitprop from an unapologetically specific slant that rejects objective truth as some sort of bourgeoisie conspiracy. The only thing worse than ignoring them is believing them uncritically.
Bias itself is a bad model; everyone's slanted, not everyone is worth reading.
Which is what The Economist does - it's been doing so since 1843. Current circulation is over one million, and it's widely respected, though not by all...
It's obviously a scale, and opinions will vary widely. It's not even a problem for journalism to have an opinion (I'd actually argue it's impossible). What readers should demand is a good-faith effort to argue the best version of the opposition's case.
At this point, the problem with the US right isn't actually ideology. You can believe that coal is the future, and I'll vote against you, but I'm not looking at CDC statistics to find out when I can expect you to die. It's the complete disregard for the system that's alarming. All over the country, there are polling places, often staffed by the older generation, people from both parties and independents, and the ones I've met always gave me the feeling that they'd defend the integrity of the vote no matter what. I wish I could say the same about the people being elected.
It's the likes of sites so disreputable they have to pretend to be Breitbart, like the Breitbartt.co site which was one of the sources for Denzel Washington's huge, if true (not true) endorsement of Donald Trump that was among Facebook's top trending stories recently.
The cynic in me suspects this is at least as much about pointing an accusing finger at social media platforms for not getting their house in order as getting Adsense off sites which tend to opt for far more in-your-face and dubious ad networks anyway.