This doesn't ask your question, but this may be of useful to people, anyway.
I've just joined ground.news, a pay site. The great part about this site is that it rates news as to left, center, or right leaning, and rates the "factuality" of the sites. Filtering out non-factual knocks out a large part of the outlier's lies, and shows who the people are, who push them. like knowing the players pushing their agenda. One caveat is that some that push lies still slide through by quoting the people who spout lies without disclaimers of the reliabilty of their false claims. One rule of thumb that I find helpful is that I mentally filter out any pleas to emotionalism. Manipulating readers/viewers emotionally is the opposite of informing. Sites that try to be centrist and ignore whether the sources are reliable about facts, end up being half lies or propagandsa. It is useful to keep in mind that blatently propaganda sites work in some truth to give themselves some plausibility. Only the highest reliable news are worth letting in to your news sphere.
This is a worldwide problem as paid propagandaists muddy the news sphere. Welcome to our cyber warfare world.
Reuters, AP, NYT, WP, and to a small extent, Ground News. I filter for high factuality. My viewing is rated as slightly skewing left, but this is caused by so many Right sources are not credible sources. Known lies are not worth my time. My biggest gripe about Ground news is that to be balanced, I must waste time on sources that are not credible. Sadly, I can listen to RT or certain USA Right leaning politicians after a little time, and hear the same news.
I forgot FP Foreign Policy and the Economist.