Having said that though, it is also fair to say, in general terms, that ABC, NBC, NYT, WP, etc. are bound by journalistic standards that do not necessarily apply to the great bulk of alternative media.

Depending on the type of alternative media, they don't have to answer to editors, owners, fact checkers, or ombudsmen, but only to those that consume their work. If their consumers prefer to be informed ideologically, then that is all that is required.

In many cases the alternative media are just information aggregators, who are much less attentive to sourcing guidelines, that real journalists typically follow.

My main beef is that there has grown in this era of misinformation, the notion that there is some sort of equivalency in terms of ethics and accuracy between the two. The manner in which they each go about the fundamentals of their business, makes that a practical impossibility.