Read the news (how to)

On Reading the News in the Internet Age
Any intellectual worth his salt, any citizen of any democracy/republic, or anyone who wishes to see the world as true as can be must come across the issue of how to read the news (though to be fair, there is some value in only reading the news to stay in tune with the currents of your fellow man). I'm referring to how one can gather the best news possible without being misled.
I'm not sure about other people but I'm very concerned with this issue. Recently, while discussing geopolitics (or at least as it pertained to the then occurring invasion of Ukraine by Russia, where it's so easy to see the drum rolls of  'power' being touted in favor of proper analysis, as if the memes of tribalism are that much stronger than rational thinking) with some friends over dinner, I came upon this issue of information.
I live in New York, and most self-respecting liberals here get a lot of their news from the New York Times (NYT), a fine newspaper which covers many points of view. But should it be the only thing one reads?
No. Let me explain. The first time I had an inkling that the news could be incorrect was as I was coming into my teenage years. I believe I was mulling over whether or not history was set in stone and whether what was happening in my life was not. In other words, previously I had the view that what was written in history books was true as anything, while (after hearing the rants and the complaints of my grandparents and my parents about newspapers and what they contained) newspapers didn't seem to be as true, and in fact seeing people contest them (such as the letters to the editor section) only furthered my distrust of them.
But as I walked through each step of collecting news versus history, I realized that there weren't any differences. That to gather news one needed eyewitnesses and that, outside of natural events, it was hard to fathom something more ephemeral. I made the connection that history was merely old news. That it wasn't much more than someone going in the past to see what people said then.
This rocked my pre-pubescent world. If what was taught wasn't true then what could I do? I decided to mistrust all that I read. But this proved to be nearly impossible. I couldn't judge for myself what was true, even if I was mistrustful, and I didn't have the background necessary to weigh it against anything (all I had was a few conflicting upbringings; I had the American text books I was reading, as well as my knowledge of what I had learned about certain hotspots in the world when I lived outside the States—for example in Israel; there couldn't a more different view of that conflict than from inside the States to outside it... this only further deepened my mistrust).
So I did something very anti-intellectual; I decided to go with what my parents were reading. I trusted that they knew something, and so I decided to trust The Economist as well as a few other magazines (some right leaning, some left leaning).
I should point that another intellectual stream was running strong in my life at this point, and that was the stream of the assimilation. Mind you I was in the middle of a small town in Michigan, thus this stream ran strong. And I was coming to love my adopted country. Therefore American triumphalism ran through my veins, in that it considered American points of view above all else.
In the face of these two lines of thought, I decided to accept them and developed a sort of distrust for a lot of what passed as the mainstream media, while accepting fully the narratives that those very same media spouted. It required much less thinking. And I'm sad to say that I completely fell for this siren song.
Then 9-11 happened. And the drums for the Iraq War started to beat. It was, in my circles, hard to find dissenting voices, and most of them sounded shrill. Being a vivid reader of The Economist, I was sure I had all the facts.
So I joined up. Infantry. A few years later I was certain that I had been fooled (though it would be easy enough to say that I allowed myself to be fooled). I was furious (see the main reason that outside of wanting to know what's going on in certain parts of the world that I mainly refuse to read The Economist). My time in Iraq also taught me that it was all too easy to see the media for the viewpoints of interests that it tends to be, as well as the fight for eyeballs. It will always be those two things above all else.
And so here I am, after that dinner, wondering how best to put my views on news reading to paper. In the end I've reverted to my previous views that the young me had: that it's impossible to read unbiased news. News is nothing more than bias-propaganda and a veiled attempt to garner more eyeballs. Even when it tries hard to be impartial it can be nothing more than a continuation of whatever narrative a nation has (note that I'm not just saying that it's an American thing, this is true of all countries), as well as the interests (powerful or otherwise) in those countries. The need for advertisers makes sure of this.
So what's a person to do? Surely one cannot make it through life avoiding all news. For then you would be forced to listen to others' views which are in turn influenced by the news. No, the best way to deal with this is to read as many conflicting reports about a matter. And that doesn't mean to just listen to a newspaper that's supposedly giving you both sides of the view. I mean you need to read from several different newspapers or news outlets (see if they're subsidiaries of something larger, because if they are, then there's not much chance that they are all that different). Listening to one will invariably make you subject to that newspaper's whims and, being that it's an entirely human endeavor, mistakes.
Therefore listen to or read many. And to that end, listen and read to as many from different nations and different geopolitical blocks as you can (there's an idea for a proper app or algorithm to create stories with these combinations in mind). Time is limited in today's world, but surely you must have time to at least add the newsfeed (a reason the Internet is great) of one American then British news outlet (BBC, the Guardian). And then go farther to another non-Anglo source (Spiegel is another). And go even farther to a non-Western source. Aljazeera, or perhaps an Indian new outlet. There are plenty of non-Western ones with English outlets.
And when these outlets tell the news, beware of any national narratives that could influence their objectivity (or where they're getting their money from and what other pies these moneyed interests have their fingers in). And finally, know some history (with just as many viewpoints). You will see a pattern developing that will allow you to, with imperfect information (because that's what all news ends up being), extrapolate into the darkness of what is not known. Or even to see a lie for what it is. This also allows you to rise up above whatever current is sweeping up rational discourse. See that the powerless don't have as many avenues to fire off their own propaganda and will be viewed as the more evil. See that occupiers call all who rise up terrorists. See the world for what it is and this will increase your chance of not being swindled.
It would be great if someone could trace all the money sources for even the News outlets I've mentioned, this would allow us to make sure that there are no duplications in that department. If more information is found, then I will surely list that here.
Any thoughts? How do you read the news?