DtG, everyone tells their own version of the truth. This is equally true for alternative online media as for the established media - in some cases, perhaps more so. As your original linked article admits, alternative media does vary in quality and can be fake, politically slanted and not sufficiently fact-checked. I checked out a number of the alternative media websites suggested in that article, and most of them seem to be opinion platforms rather than reporting hard news. It's hard to know which are run by authoritative professional journalists and which by crackpots, and it's even harder to know where their funding comes from. They are completely unaccountable.

We are flooded with information, and we have to be selective. I prefer to get mine from sources which have decades, in some cases, centuries,of experience behind them and which are broadly accountable to regulators and the courts. That they are subject to a range of influences is well-known, and is hardly new, but every mainstream newspaper's position is well-known and can be taken into account when deciding how much notice to take of them - as your response to the Sun demonstrates. The same cannot be said for most on-line sources, and frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct due diligence every time an article is brought to my attention.

We shouldn't blindly trust any source of information, but so far as I am concerned that applies even more to alternative media than it does to the mainstream.