[YazIAm]

I maybe misunderstanding your question, but this platform only accepts public primary sources as valid evidence. A media news story is never a primary source for proving the assertions within it, it's a secondary source.

Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185

[beat]

Right, I get that. And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Hence my question.

[stcredzero]

And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare.

Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalists lead.

I find journalism that actually contradicts facts to be quite common. In today's climate, the mainstream can get away with complete contradiction of the facts, so long as the targets are obscure and/or unpopular, and the "right" narrative is being pushed. If you want to find this, then you need to start looking into the dissidents of mainstream culture in 2019. (You don't have to go as far as toxic people like the Alt Right. Rather, investigate the people who are being mislabeled as "Alt Right" as a tactic to marginalize them.)