I didn't say either way deliberately but surly it must be good or better or preferable to gather information from as wide a spectrum of sources as possible before making up your mind about any subject and equally good to avoid the sources that declare you persona non grata if you don't align yourself with their viewpoint, I would have thought, if you haven't noticed this persona thing with some outlets more than others where have you been?
Perhaps - some outlets (say, Fox News) are not journalism, they are propoganda masquerading as journalism, the news equivalent of WWE as sport. Others, such as the Daily Mail, have a demonstrable history of only reporting some of the facts, and building narratives that suit their ideological perspective based upon that.
The Guardian, whilst with a well-established left-of-centre ideological point of view, at least reports the available facts in as much of their entirety as is viable - they then produce opinion influenced by their take on those facts, the facts themselves are there.
The BBC is consistently one of the most even-handed, issue-neutral journalistic outlets in the world. Right and left extremes in pretty much equal measure criticise the coverage claiming bias against them - individual presenters and shows have an inclination one way or the other, to the point where there are even internal arguments played out (Andrew Neil and the Mash Report springs to mind, recently), but as an organisation, overall they've proven consistently reliable on the vast majority of issues to the point where, if there is a consistent criticism, it's that in the quest for balance they give the oxygen of publicity to extremist nonsense that has no place in the public realm: climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, pseudoscience homeopaths, Nigel Farage and the like.
O.
