You do make a good point about a lot of the things you said right there. Even I have trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction sometimes and to think I used to trust The Young Turks as a source of news (not that I would trust InfoWars then, and I won't trust them now), and now, I'm more vigilant as to what news sources to trust. For me, wikileaks has become more trustworthy than it ever has been, (and I prefer it by far over infowars). That being said, I don't expect them always know what's going on or always be right, because insiders are hard to find and even then, they either don't know a lot about certain things or they're lying.
Also, I agree with you when you said that most people believe what fits the narrative. That, and emotional manipulation (that I've noticed, is now as common in the liberal media as it is on Sinclair and Fox News, it's scary) is why propoganda works, first conservative propoganda (mccarthyism), now liberal propoganda (progressivism, as in the movement, despite its name, is now regressive and is starting to resemble McCarthyism).
As for the training/schooling/knowledge, I have to disagree with you there because most journalists 35 years ago didn't have the training or schooling, but they did have the knowledge (like some alternative news outlets, obviously not all), and even those that did have training and schooling as well as knowledge had integrity, which is why I consider 1986-2001 the journalism renaissance.
Now journalism is becoming a club of elitists, many of whom ignore the other guys. Sorry, I get a little worked up over elitism in journalism as well as yellow journalism.