News and comment/opinion are unreliable in the UK
1. The BBC
I use the BBC website to gain an impression of current British concerns, fantasies, and of trivia filling vacuous minds. As a news source, it is dire, but far superior to commercial offerings. Some discussion pieces are excellent. The BBC publishes far fewer reader comments than before NATO hubris and Covid-19 hit the scene; topics upon which response is permitted are restricted to the bland, i.e. matters irrelevant to the grand Western narratives we are expected to parrot by heart. Comments posted to the BBC site are subjected to strict censorship should they stray into 'narratives'. Only a marker of their existence is offered; however, the BBC sends a standard email to the author mentioning breach of conditions; it does offer to consider objections.
Although the BBC has declined from its postwar heyday, its non-news output, particularly that directed towards 'high culture' remains good. I get the impression that the BBC retains many programme producers of notable calibre; regardless of their individual political views and social values, I posit there being considerable anxiety over persistent government interference and imposition of 'narratives'. Recent governments (going back to Mrs Thatcher), Conservative and Labour alike, nowadays, each of Neo-Liberal outlook, hold the threat of privatisation over the BBC: that would be a disaster.
2. Independent broadcasters
Long ago I ceased all contact with these. They are lowest-common-denominator outlets intent upon maximising advertising revenue. I avoid being subjected to advertisements. That entails ignoring these sources of news and 'entertainment'. Also, the WWW would be out of bounds were it not for blocking software; for instance YouTube, if not subjected to 'home censorship', would be too much of a nightmare. Incidentally, 'FreeTube' for Linux does an excellent job of weeding out crap; similar utilities exist for Android and can be accessed via the free F-Droid application.
3. Print and online news vendors
Up until the current era of thought control, the Daily Telegraph did a sterling job with respect to news integrity and commentary. Also, the online community of comment-making subscribers was lively. Only the most egregiously distasteful remarks were deleted. Moreover, a couple of decades ago, the Telegraph provided a now abandoned, WordPress blog platform which was a forerunner of Disqus, and many similar.
Gradually, the online Telegraph descended into a tacky purveyor of goods for readers. In parallel, it commissioned frothy 'life-style' pieces from second-rate writers. Nowadays, the Telegraph appears to have taken on the rôle of official spokes-organ for the Ministry of Defence and NATO.
The Telegraph lost all claim to integrity when it began shadow-banning online subscriber comments. This seems to have been effected via the Canadian company the Telegraph uses to manage the online comment system. Shadow-banning is the most dishonest tool for censorship yet devised. Paying subscribers are misled into thinking their comment was published; that is misrepresentation and dishonestly accepting money under false pretences. I have a series of screenshots proving my assertions.
Once upon a time I dabbled with the Guardian. Before the most recent Editor took office, there were some interesting writers. Comment moderation was prissy, but one could get around obstacles by deploying irony. It was quite fun trying to best 'politically correct' moderators. It seems a general phenomenon that people who take themselves very seriously are so blinkered they cannot recognise irony (the brighter twin of sarcasm). Also, Americans don't do irony. My greatest success was a comment on an article about so-called 'Travellers'.
4. Alternative sources of news and opinion
To override BBC news trivia and its adherence to government diktat, I daily visit RT (formerly 'Russia Today'), and sometimes dip into Al Jazeera. RT is an excellent source of international news, and of informed opinion (writers drawn from many places). RT offers excellent documentary films and discussion 'shows'. Also, RT provides a more or less 'free for all' reader comment system hosted by Tolstoy Comments. Although lambasted by Western interests, I believe RT to have sound editorial policies, refreshingly so.
During WW2, no attempt was made in the UK to prevent people listening on the radio to German propaganda. In fact, the broadcaster, an Irishman named William Joyce, colloquially 'Lord Haw-Haw', was a great hit, but not in the manner expected by the Reich. Joyce, not a British citizen, was subjected to a gross postwar miscarriage of justice: hanged by the British. RT is forbidden to broadcast in NATO nations. Its online platform is blocked in the UK and throughout Western Europe. One has to resort to a VPN or a mirror site. Ironically, RT cannot be blocked, as yet, in the USA because that would breach the Constitution; therefore a VPN masquerading as originating in the USA makes a reliable connection.
If one seeks honest reportage on events in Israel, RT is one of several places to go. RT is also forthcoming over NATO's proxy war in Ukraine. However, for a detailed day by day account of the battles I recommend a Rumble channel called 'Military Summary' which has no affiliation with nations participating in the fighting.