They fish out dirts in others while their home country is never exposed to their investigative journalism.
True, and the same can be said of RT, and many others.
This actually seems to be the default configuration for the market in journalism (whether the funding comes from advertising or the state). Afflicting the comfortable even-handedly is a privilege very few news organizations have. There is almost always a hand that feeds them they are reluctant to bite.
The best we can reasonably hope for (WRT Aljazeera) is a competing org with a different source of funding.
If you want to be informed about the world, you aren't going to get there without reading radically different news sources, that don't share a common bias. If all you read is domestic news, your information sources have too much common bias for you to get a clear picture of what is actually happening.
That is, I'm sure there will be no shortage of people who will explain how Fox News and MSNBC are happy to talk about problems as long as they don't rock the boat. It's fine to continuously speak about crumbling infrastructure, but it's not as fine to speak about the economical benefits of war and that the society happily accepts the death of hundreds of thousands of foreigners for it, because that would become very uncomfortable very quickly.
I'm not sure what you mean with the last parts of your sentence. I've definitely seen stories from Fox News and MSNBC about the economical benefits of war or foreigners dying in war. Many of the anchors on those networks take great pride in making things uncomfortable for the powers that be, although they disagree on precisely who those powerful people are.