You must be associating (lack of) quality with how sensationalist/tabloid-style a publication is, which is more superficial.
> I appreciate being exposed to alternative views that consistently challenge my own
Which is why a publication should aim to challenge its readers with opposing opinion pieces, instead of constantly reinforcing their beliefs (aka "the easy way out").
If you want "unbiased reporting" you get articles like: Angela Merkel ate Aspargus yesterday.
That's unbiased. It's also irrelevant. Anything more interesting will always have a bias as long as it is written by humans.
The Guardian do pretty well: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ - but are well known to be left leaning
It's not like all the news articles from before 6 years ago have been lost in a fire. One can still go and read them. Even look at front page snapshots via archive.org. The different is astounding.
While that is technically true, it's also a completely meaningless objection. Like I said, being unbiased is the goal. It's an ideal.
For comparison, even though it may be technically impossible to have zero lead in drinking water, your goal is still to minimize it.
I wonder if you apply your standard for quality to everything you read in an unbiased way?
Let's take global warming. Some people on the right may say it doesn't exist. Some people on the left may say it exists and it is a great danger. The "middle ground" would probably be something like "It exists, but it is not such a great danger". The "unbiased" view would be whatever the science says.
> I wonder if you apply your standard for quality to everything you read in an unbiased way?
No. I don't apply it to HN comments, for instance.