Every time you read a report on a topic, mountains of facts are omitted for the sake of disseminating the points the authors and editors thought you should know to build your opinion. It is thus vital that you trust their judgment to do so in a way that's beneficial to you.
Knowing things is just really hard and we tend to fool ourselves into believing we know more than we do and that we can know more than is reasonable (yours truly included).
"any story you read is editorialized to some degree"
The opinion is the value add.
I used to read The Economist, because they challenged my views. I read Tyler Cowen today because I disagree with him and because he argues his case.
The rut we find popular discourse in today is caused by two things. The New Deal consensus we once had has not been replaced with a new consensus. The reluctance to distinguish between blather and discourse (debate).
Interpretations are commentary, not reporting. Reporting is strictly facts. Even opinion pieces contain some reporting ("X did Y, and here's what you should think about it"). I don't believe it's "anti-intellectualism" to ask for more reporting and less commentary.
Anyone quoting sources and showing their work (published data) is reporting.
Even if you disagree with the interpretation, conclusions. Especially if you disagree.
--
Sadly, I continue to be embarrassed, surprised when geeks proclaim it's all just opinion. This anti-intellectualism is how cults and hoaxes fester and grow.
It's not helping.
Is it too much to ask that the primary beneficiaries of our modern, technical, scientifically advanced society also defend the foundations of our society?
How about just part time? A few hours per week. Take a breather from the cynicism. Just pretend the world is knowable and that we can work to improve stuff. Think of it as a new hobby.