It's a mistake to assume there is a dichotomy between purveyors of intentional nonsense and the supposed "quality" reportage of more established organizations. In reality, editors know that readers want to be reassured of their prejudices and so standard narratives emerge. In fact, SARS-COV-2 provides an almost perfect textbook example of the standard narrative. No editor whose publication serves the moderately educated middle-class would dare contradict the standard narrative on covid-19 despite (for example) the Great Barrington Declaration, the fact that all the extant data does not support the standard narrative, and that the claims of health experts are internally inconsistent. Of course SARS-COV-2 exists and of course a tiny fraction of the world's population is dying as a result, but the standard narrative, pushed by all "responsible" media outlets, has created mass hysteria that is not justified by reality. The hysteria in turn has resulted in appallingly harmful policies that have a cost that massively outweighs even the most optimistic claims regarding benefits. So to assume there are lies and truth, with Fox et al clearly on the side of the lies and the "respectable" media on the side of truth, is naive and self-serving. Even supposedly adequate media sources edit carefully and omit everything that would potentially alienate the audience. Which is nearly as distorting as the infantile hate-filled lies of Fox News et al. The hard truth is that 99% of people just want a soundbite; hardly anyone will ever bother to look for, never mind understand the meaning of, reliable information.