More like, news from certain sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

There are plenty of good journalists with high reputation that you can certainly take more than a pinch of salt with.

Even reputations are hotly debated in this climate. I think a good habit is to read from as many sources as possible, including controversial ones, and making a private determination as to how to weight reporting.

There are enough sources supporting any worldview that there's a real risk that you'll just end up supporting whichever one you started with. I have no idea how you can do better though.

I struggle with confirmation bias, myself.

Samples?

Anything that hits the front page of nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com for example. Opinion pieces are a different ballgame, obviously.

There's no shortage of people who share that same "belief", but would end up writing down a different and conflicting list of people than you, with no loss of accuracy

This is not some new phenomena that didn't exist until very recently. Critical thinking has been required since, well, 'news' was a thing.

I agree it’s not a new phenomena and never said that it was. I’d argue that our news was historically fair-minded up until the recent mass-scale polarization.