How about this metaphor: There are two burger joints. One consistently gets poor health code reviews, vermin in the preparation areas/mouse feces on the cutting board, etc. while another has a mostly clean rap sheet, only marred by a "missing a hair net" violation once every few years. Which one do you go to? Certainly they're not equivalent, right?

So two sources One is 95% truth, 5% they get wrong and apologise One is 95% lies, and 5% they get it right

Which do you read?

It depends on the impact of the lies. The Guardian's Mark Duggan headline was the subject of a PCC complaint awarded against them, see https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... This could have easily led to more violence. This week The Washington Post recently published the false narrative against a 16 year old boy approached by a native man at a protest (saying that he'd approached and threatened the man), resulting in thousands of violent threats against a child.

'Proper' journalism doesn't exist. Maybe it never did, it's just more obvious now. It's news entertainment.