What publications do you read? For a random example off the top of my head, I've found that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is exceptional on topics I know well.
1) In his first term, Morales pushes through a new constitution, which among other things dissolves the Bolivian Supreme Court. In its place, it creates a high court comprising judges elected from a slate of candidates appointed by the legislature controlled by his party. This constitution has a two term limit.
2) Morales runs for a third term, after getting the high court to rule that his first term didn’t count since it started before the new constitution.
3) In his third term, he solicits a public referendum asking whether the term limit should be waived to allow him to run for a fourth term. In a vote that had very good turn out, the people vote “no.”
4) Morales ignores the referendum. Instead, he goes back to the high court, which rules that the term limits violate Morales’ “human rights.” The court allows him to run for a fourth term.
5) Morales wins the election, but the Organization of American States releases a report finding “overwhelming evidence of vote rigging.” Massive protests start in response to the report.
6) Morales slowly loses the support of key institutions, including the police. Many members of his own party resigned. A major labor union called for him to resign.
7) The account is disputed at this point. Morales supporters contend that the military then withdrew its support and encouraged him to resign. Morales opponents say that he ordered the military to crack down on protestors, and they refused. Even taking Morales’ supporters at face value, at most what happened is that the military encouraged him to resign after he lost the support of key institutions and many members of his own party.
8) Claiming that he was deposed in a coup, Morales flees to Mexico.
9) Subsequently, Morales’ party basically told him not to come back.
Aside from hunting at the term limits, Greenwald mentions none of the real story.
More to the point, Greenwald omits all the background information necessary for the reader to decide whether there was a coup. The military didn’t just one day decide to stop supporting Morales after 14 years. It happened only after a series of events—illegal actions by Morales and key institutions abandoning him.
My impression is that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is indeed excellent. However my knowledge of secret surveillance is from the writings of people like him - it is not a subject that I have independent knowledge that I can verify anything from. Furthermore at this point I would consider him more of a subject matter expert than a general journalist. Reporting on the same topics in CNN or the NYT tends to be pretty shoddy.
That said, there are some publications, such as Propublica and The Economist that seem to consistently do a good job of reporting. So it is not all. But it is a lot.
That said, I was basing my comments on my personal expertise on programming, math, physics and a handful of celebrities that I happen to know personally. Reporting on all of those is pretty uniformly terrible.
There are outliers, of course, but that’s the nature of large groups of people.
If we as a society want deep, accurate, journalism we have to figure out a way to make it more profitable than clickbait.
There are (exceedingly rare) examples where journalist do get it right, but your example is a journalist reporting on classified material. Unless you're a higher-up in the NSA, you would have no clue if he got details wrong.