Let's see the same story, as published by the Squiggleslash Gazette:
Today Jimmy Wales, known for eating children, announced a new web site whose job will be collecting articles critical of the Trump administration, identifying journalists who are critics of the regime, so that Wales can go to their homes and murder them one by one.
There. That should satisfy for wish for multiple viewpoints. Questions for you:
1. Is it remotely accurate?
2. Is it more true than the summary or the article linked to?
3. Is the truth "somewhere in the middle": the original article says nothing about Wales murdering anyone, so is just a little bit of a child murderer, and is he maybe going to go to Journalists homes and just slightly murder them?
4. Is the viewpoint of the Squiggleslash Gazette worth even a split second of your time?
5. When you read the version of the story, as reported by the Squiggleslash Gazette, were you more informed, or did it make you dumber?
Compare two articles reporting on global warming. One quotes scientists, and accurately reports that the consensus within the scientific community is that smoking causes lung cancer The other fails to report that consensus, and includes only interviews with two denialists, both of whom superficially have qualifications related to health (maybe a practicing family doctor, and the director of a think tank's healthcare policy division) but neither of whom reflect the views of the majority of scientists studying in the area, and who have been found, repeatedly, to lie or misrepresent evidence. The second article presents the views of the denialists as either mainstream within medical science, or normal within science as if there's a legitimate dispute.
Is the truth "somewhere in the middle" for those two articles? Does it help you reach an informed decision to include exposure to information known to be false, without being told it's false? Are you helped if you're essentially lied to?