This is a good argument to not trust any news, rather than to pick one side or the other.
People will be able to lie and fabricate stories if it totes the party line or endorses a polarized identity. Which means they will always have people to defend them and ensure that they are protected from criticism. It's just better to work with stories that are covered by mutiple sides of the spectrum to ensure that there is at least some basis of the facts to discuss.
I would ask the same to Spartan, but essentially, what are our goals in discussing the issues? Are we interested in coming to a consensus on a base so that we can talk things out, or are we simply interested in posting things to take a stab at the other side.
I would argue the latter does more disservice to the effectiveness of arguments and prevents coherent discussion (which applies to literally everyone). It's your freedom to post what you want (and perhaps you write to inform readers that browse TWC), but I think we should change our approach so that we have better grounds of discussion. I think it will help in the long run goal of coming closer to a consensus.