[tekmate]

identify potential biases in a source and then filter the information of that source through a bias lense, then use another source and do the same thing to triangulate "the truth"

giving up on consuming news because everything might be biased is simply lazy

[jl6]

Beware that the truth is not necessarily the midpoint between opposing opinions. Sometimes a source with a general bias gets it exactly right in a specific case.

[lowmagnet]

And there aren't always "two sides" to an issue; there are arguments made in bad faith and those in good faith and it's hard to tell the difference.

[tekmate]

true, triangulating doesn't mean the middle necessarily

[dexen]

>giving up on consuming news because everything might be biased is simply lazy

Not at all; it's a valid strategy. The events and the state of the world can be deduced from observing the (near) past just as well as from reading the news, perhaps even better. A person can stay reasonably well informed by skipping on the news, and instead observing actual events, actual outcomes, that is the (near) history. Both in person and through social circles, in particular friends and family. You could call it "the slow way" of getting the news.

As noted in OP and elsewhere in discussion, the news are rife with misinformation. It follows news listeners, subject to the misinformation, end up with various misconceptions and strong emotions, thus prone to doing things no well informed person would do. Having a sizable segment of population not subject to the news, and instead informed via others means is a natural counter-balance, a safety mechanism against single mindedness imparted by the centralized news.

[pnutjam]

You just described "the news", which is different then opinion shows which are very common.

Many people with a personal agenda lump the news in with opinion shows when they hear things they don't like.

[tasogare]

That works if there are enough different sources with different biais. That might not be the case i lot of countries.