It's a good thing to follow news from a one-sided source. The old saw that bank tellers are taught to detect counterfeit bills by handling genuine ones would be a great thing to be able to apply to news as well.
The problem is, I can't think of an unbiased news source to use as our standard, to train us in the genuine. There is no large pool of genuine $50 bills to handle when it comes to news. What most of us do is to try and fine the source(s) that come closest to being accurate and evenhanded. I propose that sources with identifiable points of view might be better, so long as one recognises what the POV is. CS Lewis suggested starting with books from earlier eras, because we cannot read the books of the future, but must have something to set against our own age. An older book - even a little older such as 50 or 100 years - has enormous biases that were unseen at the time but leap off the page to us now. We get into the habit of correcting mentally.
Reading a biased news source now can also be instructive. It demonstrates how one can lie with the truth, by reporting some things and leaving others out. This in turn can awaken suspicions about the sources we usually rely on. Now that we know how the card trick is done, we might detect it more readily.