The median news article has something wrong in it.
Often I live through events and read about it in the daily paper and then read about it in The Economist and read a few more accounts of it. 5-25 years later a good well researched history of the event comes out and it is entirely different from what I remember reading at the time. Some of that is my memory but a lot of it is that the first draft of history is wrong.
When someone signed their name "Dan Cooper" and hijacked a plane a newspaper garbled that to "D B Cooper", the FBI thought it sounded cool so they picked it up, but it happens more often than not that journalists garble things like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Armies_of_the_Night
shows (but doesn't tell) that that a novelized accounts of events could be more true than a conventional newspaper account and similar criticisms come throughout the work of Joan Didion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Didion
If anything really makes me angry about news and how people consume it is this. In the age of clickbait everyone who works for The New York Times has one if not two eyes on their stats at all times. Those stats show that readers have a lot more interest in people like David Brooks and Ezra Klein blowing it out their ass and could care less about difficult journalism that takes integrity, elbow grease and occasionally can put you in danger done by younger people who are paid a lot less if they are paid at all. The conservative press was slow on the draw when it came to 'Cancel Culture', it was a big issue with the NYT editorial page because those sorts of people get paid $20k to give a college commencement address and they'd hate to have the gravy train stop.
Seen that way the problem with 'fake news' is not that it is 'fake' but that it is 'news'.