The fact is, that the NYT and WaPo were the ones that broke the Clinton email server story, etc.

And while you list the sites you believe are the main purveyors of "fake news", you don't list any sources of what you believe to be "real news".

You should be proud of them. What are they?

On the international front, I read the FT, the Economist, the NYT, the WaPo, the L.A. Times, the WSJ and the SMH

They don't always agree, but I find they collectively provide a picture of a world I understand, and more importantly can verify through personal experience and the passage of time.

Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch, and News Corp? Most have not heard of both.

Collectively, they own FOX, and the WSJ. Yet the WSJ, reads more like the NYT, and FOX is wholly different. Yet if FOX is telling the truth, I wonder why they haven't let that "truth" enter the WSJ?

Or is it because the people who read the WSJ are wealthier, more worldly, etc, and simply would laugh at FOX? Murdoch knows the market.