The credibility of the media has been compromised decades ago, if one were to believe a Wikileaks report dating to the late 70's. It was saying that the top media people of many newspapers of that time were persuaded to portray news with a prejudice, all for a few dollars and 'foreign education' for their children. There is a whole list of media and people posted there. If this was the situation 40 years ago, wonder how it is now!
Our main media houses today are tied up with the fake-news-producers of the west. Dig into their websites and you'll find their affiliations. So nowadays when we read about something, we are to understand that something happened in regard to whatever was the topic. As for the contents of the news item, we cannot be sure whether what is said is true or not, until we search around from other sources and local people on the ground.
Even the latest 'terror attack in Manchester, UK, it shows several gaps in the story. Apparently terror attacks in the west never breaks up bodies to pieces and scatter them all over the place, never cause major damage, and the official cameras which could record the happenings seem to disappear, only fuzzy low quality recordings are available for public to see, and the attacker almost always leaves his ID or passport in the scene of crime (they are fire proof, bullet proof and have a magical aura of protection around them). Only bumbling actors pretending to be victims/witnesses giving interviews to major media outlets inadvertently mess up their words to expose the gol-maal going on to deceive people to change their mindsets. Compare this to bomb blasts in other countries like ours, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia,Uganda, etc., it shows the raw mess and gory details and leaves no doubt from the pictures and camera recordings about the reality of the blast.
So if one wants to get correct info, then he has to look around and double check from alternate sources. It is extra work, but unfortunately that how it is now.