When you read article after article that imply one thing, but actually say something else, how should we respond?

Parsing out what the article says is necessary.

It’s how articles are written, and how reporters and editors ask they be read.

“John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said” does not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a terrible crime.

I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by committing to high standards, but they have not.

Absolutely. And this whole idea of demonizing misinformation just makes it worse by implying that true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers is somehow OK.

> true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers

…is also misinformation.

> The distrust of the press has been cultivated intentionally.

Yea, by the press itself, or, do you honestly believe the billionaire owner class of this form of media has done an excellent job reporting truthfully over the past 30 years?

Pull yourself back from your politics and genuinely consider this.

Do a retrospective, you’ll see there are media outlets that have given accurate information and assessments of the world. The measure should be whether what they report holds true as time passes and whether, using their reporting to extrapolate predictions, do those predictions come true.

Your pessimism in all media is unfounded.

When reading an article, how do I figure out what the “good reporter” is trying to say, and distinguish it from what the “bad owner” is trying to say?

The best way I know is to carefully parse the text in its most literal form. That is what the “good reporter” is saying. The “general idea” of what is being said is probably what the editor wants.

Owners and editors want “wow” articles. Journalists know most of what they report is just “somebody said something.”

The point I'm replying to is that this was "cultivated intentionally." I understand the mechanism we're trying to determine the source.

You also seem to forget that journalists sometimes leave and become owners in their own right. Where does that blurry line begin and end, actually?

Means, motive, opportunity. It's always the same triad and you can't avoid applying to all parties involved.

Given that and the importance of broadcast media I can't imagine why anyone thought they were getting the truth. Or even if they were somehow not a highly selected and edited version of it. Designed to manipulate and control not to inform.

The ‘press’ has been clear bullshit (for me) since Gulf War 1.