You shouldn't bother taking the bait from people who suggest there is no dishonesty in the MSM reporting except for Fox News. Even if they bother reading any information you provide, they will either deny it or muck up the water with allegations of someone else being dishonest. Anyway, I stopped reading after a few examples. Did they bother including Jim Aocsta questioning why Republicans cannot pass things in the Senate when they have the majority? That right there is example numero uno. A chief White House correspondent pretending that the filibuster is not a real thing by asking a question he would know the answer to if he took political science 101.
One of the problems I see is that a lot of people don't differentiate between news (factual information), analysis (some type of interpretation of what those facts might mean or how they may apply), and op-ed (pure opinion). Since all them are aired on the same channels, often by the same presenter in the same program, they are easily conflated.
Well, each paper is politically biased, for instance, look into NY Times, the Guardian, other authoritative sources. From the articles they publish it's really obvious if they support Trump or not, against Brexit or not. That's bias.
The Reuters is more or less unbiased, but that's now debatable too.