The history of organized attempts to ensure a "right thinking" populace is long and fraught with failures that led to the exact opposite. The credibility of news organizations has been greatly compromised in the last 20 years or so by them presenting opinion as fact. There are, and probably always will be, organizations that are purportedly "news" outlets that actually spread their opinions as fact. In the past, the public could easily identify these outlets and take their statements with many grains of salt. Today, even the mainstream news reports stories with significant "editorial bias". On top of that many "talking head" opinion programs are presented as "news", when in reality they are a small group of mostly like-minded individuals expressing their opinions.
Arguably, no "news" reporting organization can be completely unbiased, as at a minimum they must chose what to report and what not to report. It is difficult to avoid bias in that decision, but "responsible" news organizations try. The inherent assumption of American Democracy has always been that the people can sort through the "facts" and arrive at the truth. However, when the "facts" are accompanied by opinions that caveat the reports, the public does indeed cease to trust the media and then often chooses among the all universally biased reporting the one that matches their own personnel biases. IMO that is where we sit. We have indeed people that attempt to "facilitate" "right-thinking" by pointing out that "you can't trust person X". In many cases, these caveats may be correct, but their presence destroys the neutrality and objectivity of the reports.
IMO support for Ukraine is best served by simply reporting the facts. The facts in this war tell their own story. They don't require a "Ukraine for Dummies". It may be that the public is no longer capable of (or willing to) sorting fact from opinion, but there is a lot better chance of a "correct" consensus being reached that way than by "well-meaning" (or not) guides telling us what to believe and what to ignore.
Arguably, no "news" reporting organization can be completely unbiased, as at a minimum they must chose what to report and what not to report. It is difficult to avoid bias in that decision, but "responsible" news organizations try. The inherent assumption of American Democracy has always been that the people can sort through the "facts" and arrive at the truth. However, when the "facts" are accompanied by opinions that caveat the reports, the public does indeed cease to trust the media and then often chooses among the all universally biased reporting the one that matches their own personnel biases. IMO that is where we sit. We have indeed people that attempt to "facilitate" "right-thinking" by pointing out that "you can't trust person X". In many cases, these caveats may be correct, but their presence destroys the neutrality and objectivity of the reports.
IMO support for Ukraine is best served by simply reporting the facts. The facts in this war tell their own story. They don't require a "Ukraine for Dummies". It may be that the public is no longer capable of (or willing to) sorting fact from opinion, but there is a lot better chance of a "correct" consensus being reached that way than by "well-meaning" (or not) guides telling us what to believe and what to ignore.