I agree, this is the best approach by far. You should read fox news and cnn to get a balanced perspective. Though few minds can handle the cognitive dissonance, sadly.
That works about as well as spending a day in fire, followed by a day submerged in freezing water as a strategy for temperature regulation...
If you absolutely must approach this with a false-equivalence (or "fake-balance") mindset, the WSJ and NYT are two much better sources, and have a better claim of being equidistant from something approaching a political center (CNN, at least when I used to watch it, was nowhere near as insane as FOX at the time).
I you don't have much time, just read the NYT. It's the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, and, despite repeat assertion to the opposite, they are better today than they have ever been.
Isn't this rather like suggesting you read anti-vax and vaccination proponents or climate scientists and climate change deniers in order to get a 'balanced' perspective?
If you absolutely must approach this with a false-equivalence (or "fake-balance") mindset, the WSJ and NYT are two much better sources, and have a better claim of being equidistant from something approaching a political center (CNN, at least when I used to watch it, was nowhere near as insane as FOX at the time).
I you don't have much time, just read the NYT. It's the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, and, despite repeat assertion to the opposite, they are better today than they have ever been.