It seems that we are talking from completely different perspectives. My friend, I agree with you that there is some truth in what you are saying, but this confident generalization, excuse me, may be absurd. I know that with continuous research, you will learn that there are different factors and contexts, such as mainstream media, political leanings, and regional interests. There are media outlets like CNN, NBC, and Fox, then there are news agencies like BBC and Reuters, then there are magazines like The Economist, Foreign Policy, and The National Interest, and then there are think tanks like Carnegie and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and so on. You will learn that even at the most balanced level, you will look for the author. You will easily understand their views and credentials, and you will learn the timing of the topic, whether it is during elections or a specific crisis. You will analyze the information, filter it, and decide what to accept and reject. For example, when they say that Turkey should be expelled from NATO for reasons of press freedom and increasing authoritarianism, that is one thing, and when you say it, they also say it is for adopting such-and-such policies in this or that region. Is it the same thing for us in this or that situation? You will learn that when they say that it was democratic, good, and open until 2007, then it became non-democratic, you will go and investigate what happened in 2007 that made them say that. And so on.