The distrust of the press has been cultivated intentionally. A POTUS saying "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" would have been seen too farcical for a comedy. And yet here we are.
Parsing out what the article says is necessary.
It’s how articles are written, and how reporters and editors ask they be read.
“John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said” does not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a terrible crime.
I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by committing to high standards, but they have not.
…is also misinformation.
Yea, by the press itself, or, do you honestly believe the billionaire owner class of this form of media has done an excellent job reporting truthfully over the past 30 years?
Pull yourself back from your politics and genuinely consider this.
Your pessimism in all media is unfounded.
The best way I know is to carefully parse the text in its most literal form. That is what the “good reporter” is saying. The “general idea” of what is being said is probably what the editor wants.
Owners and editors want “wow” articles. Journalists know most of what they report is just “somebody said something.”
You also seem to forget that journalists sometimes leave and become owners in their own right. Where does that blurry line begin and end, actually?
Means, motive, opportunity. It's always the same triad and you can't avoid applying to all parties involved.
Given that and the importance of broadcast media I can't imagine why anyone thought they were getting the truth. Or even if they were somehow not a highly selected and edited version of it. Designed to manipulate and control not to inform.