No, information may have been made available by biased media, but it may have been presented in such a way to adjust the perceived significance of it.
Take the email scandal for example. Every news outlet provided the information, but there are vastly different conclusions about the importance of it that a reader will be led to draw based on how the information was presented.
Even the headline you were upset about was a logical conclusion given a viewpoint based on the information available about the recent shooting of the police officers.
Information: Two policeman killed by a man who was in the country illegally
Conservative news interpretation: Illegal immigrant a result of poor border control policies by current administration. Therefore, "Obama lets immigrants across border to kill white people."
Liberal news interpretation: Immigration is a touchy subject right now, exclude anything related to it. Therefore, "Two policeman were killed by a person who happened to be a human."
That is not the standard for bias, and the fact you make your standard "Well if it doesn't have info that conservatives have". What about libertarians? Anarchists? Socialists? Fascists? Communists?
Everyone is bias, some places do a great job of separating out their biases from reporting but its fantasy land to think that there are motivated journalists out there that just don't have an opinion one way or the other.
That's a bold claim.
I have a pretty complete understanding of current events from reading those sources.
For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media.