Independent analysts on Twitter collated with your own common sense developed by reading broadly for general knowledge and history. Go back to basics and learn the fundamentals of informal logic and conversational implicature, to help discern between logic, rhetoric and opinion. Allow for multiple interpretations of the facts. Compensate (incompletely) for narrative bias through valuing first-hand sources (if it's admissible in court, even if it's inconclusive, it's still evidence). The key questions to ask are, what's missing? what's being emphasized? Who benefits? Where are the contradictions? Why not use an alternative phrase? What's simply a lie? Why do so?

In the "post-truth" era, everyone needs to become a diet version of a counterintelligence operative. The point of post-truth is that all sources of credibility are no longer impartial. They are instead persuasive media looking out for different interests through errors of omission and commission. As such you are not left with any ground to stand on other than the relative inconsistency of different narratives. No story can be taken in its own right – it has to be contextualized in a greater fabric of understanding and information and experience such that what is bullshit and nonsense can be ignored without harm. The good news is that there is much literature in the field of deception, counterintel, language manipulation, power plays etc to work this angle. The bad news is that it's work.

At the risk of irony in providing an unsourced quote:

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

I use RSS feeds for Reuters's business section for business and finance news and the AP for general news. I guess I don't know how either of them handle retractions or updates but I like my news to be as dispassionate as possible and I think Reuters and the AP are as close to that as you can get. I'm sure the journalists for both have their biases but at least they aren't as obvious as other outlets.

I don't think there is such a thing and I'm not sure why. It seems like everybody that writes something does it to convince you of something they believe, insteading of providing a neutral informed review of the facts. You just can't trust reporters to be honest or to know what they are talking about.

The best bet seems to be finding subject matter expects with opposing views and listening to their arguments and the evidence behind them, then coming to your own conclusions. I.e. a lot for work.