They might believe it but anyone not engaging in motivated reasoning can see they aren't. But it just isn't reasonably possible to match up major news reporting

They might believe it but anyone not engaging in motivated reasoning can see they aren't. But it just isn't reasonably possible to match up major news reporting with someone who sat down and asked "what reporting is important and helpful to the readers?" outside maybe financial journals. They're pretty obviously trying to gin up hate, fear and misunderstanding. The reporting on Trump alone during his presidency was jaw dropping, let alone all the low-level warmongering that threads through the corporate press. My rule of thumb is to go read what any politician actually said, because I've only seen it reported accurately by a journalist in rare cases. That rule simply isn't something a productive reporting slant would require.