Namely, the traditional media market is an advertising platform: it makes its money by selling stories and perspectives in the form of media narrative to its audience. Large corporations and governments contract with the media to determine what those stories are.
You will get stories, and entertaining ones, sure. But it's hardly "true" in the true/false sense. It's like asking if the story Goldilocks is true or false. It isn't either.
Indeed, that news media industry sold stories to the American people to - for example - get them into the Iraq war. This was a combination of very true and also false facts. You could point to any particular story and argue pointlessly about whether the individual story was true or false, like Goldilocks.
Because of widespread distrust of the 'narrative morals' of mainstream media, alternatives have been appearing. There is a desire by information moguls - both public and private industry - to maintain credibility and to make in various forms alternative narratives not feasible.
For public appeal, selective choices are being taken to highlight articles with clearly fabricated facts, with the message being: all alternatives are like this. The first part is true: there exist articles that are complete bullshit both inside and outside the main "credible" media industry. But the second part is not. There's plenty of very well researched, very well documented, very well analysed information that does not get any play in the mainstream media.
I remember recently an audio recording of John Kerry talking to Syrian rebel forces was leaked. I got the NYT take. And then I listened to the leaked audio.
The content was completely different than the NYT tried to make it out to be and in some cases the point Kerry was making was the exact opposite of the NYT had published. In this case, it was quite clear what the political implications would be of honestly reporting on the content, and including the parts that were selectively edited out.