In times of crisis and too much information, I tend to just read real "news papers" (well, in a digital format).
The quality difference to online journalism is incredible. That isn't an indictment against online journalists, since it is just the sad state of their industry and I think it just might not be possible to convey accurate news on the same day. If you want researched facts, you will have to wait at least a few days. And it often isn't just facts alone, but you require a larger context to put the info in perspective.
Classical journalism still makes a good job here, although reading different editors is still a good idea.
> Behind every news I can see some ulterior motive.
In online journalism I think that is mostly decided by readers. Especially controversial topics get a lot of hits. Guess which topics are going to be on the table for articles next week? If you think an article is basically just a troll, you shouldn't click it. I often make the same mistake, even if I just want to read the comments.
There are better and worse papers, but I don't have any specific recommendations for the anglosphere.