I get what you're saying, and there is certainly a place for that. For example, just this week I saw the WaPo headlines about Trump supposedly sharing classified intelligence with Russian diplomats. Now maybe that's true. But my spidey sense was tingling as I read the articles from all the major news outlets. I saw not one of them was calling for impeachment for what would absolutely be a crime if it is true. And I saw not one of them was calling for charges to be levied, which I would expect people who dislike him to be rooting for since it's precisely the same sort of crime that Trump wanted Hillary in prison for. The articles also mention how the third-party source didn't approve for the info to be shared with Russia. All of this combined indicates to me that the information isn't "classified" at all. It's just considered sensitive - and that's a massive difference. One that would make all the headlines factually inaccurate. And since none of the media outlets were calling for action to be taken, I think they are fully aware that the info wasn't actually classified.

But more importantly, I find the real risk isn't in what/how they are reporting and being aware of the slant, but rather in what they are intentionally not reporting on. The issue at its core is information asymmetry. No one individual can stay on top of everything going on in the world which is why we rely on information sources to sort it out and keep us informed. But they can't be trusted - any of them. They all have agendas and biases. The only way is to expose yourself to information from multiple sources with different opinions so that you can, hopefully, wade through all the bullshit and actually get to the facts.

Also, with something like gadget reviews, you can close that information gap by purchasing it and testing it yourself. You can easily determine if someone is full of crap. You can't easily do that when it comes to politics and world news. And the risk to society with our current media/news system is extraordinary. People follow the sources that they agree with and it becomes a bubble for them that they live in. Those sources rarely ever introduce anything that goes against their narrative grain so you get a positive feedback loop where people's opinions are strengthened simply because of the information they choose to consume. It's like how so many people on Twitter and Facebook couldn't comprehend how Trump won because they 1) don't associate with anyone who supported him and 2) they only followed people with the same political beliefs - so they had no idea what his true support level was.

/rant