There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone can get up a national radio/TV network. Probably just as importantly, its helps to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the monopolistic practices required to do this if neither major party feels like you have it out for them specifically. But they still had an agenda, just one that the Federal Government can't complain about: pro-US and anti-extremist. If you were too far to the left or right for the comfort of the national media, heaven help you. The sainted Edward R. Morrow these types like to point to reported live sympathetic pieces from the London Blitz at a time most in the US wanted to stay out of WWII. That's not really "balance" (and a damn good thing he did). Balance was never a real thing. Its just a smokescreen for saying the media's bias should be within a certain range in the middle of the political spectrum, wherever that middle happens to be today.
So this talk about being neutral, unbiased, or balanced is just a bunch of hooey. It was a polite fiction we all agreed to pretend to believe for 50 years while it was useful. But the broadcast era is dead and buried now. Anyone can start up a podcast, website, or twitter account, and report the news any way they damn well please.
More to the point, reporting on evil in a "balanced" way is neither desirable nor moral. For all the talk about "balance", Murrow understood that.