I'm of mixed minds on this.

The online world can be (and quite often is) an extraordinarily bad information source, and compounds numerous limited-attention dynamics.

At the same time, both print and broadcast media sources seem to be markedly worse, even the "best" of these. I find numerous national broadcasters (BBC, CBC, Australian ABC, PBS, NPR) almost completely unlistenable, despite decades of previous exposure. I'm not sure if they're getting markedly worse, or my own discernment has changed, though I suspect bits of both.

Some print sources are reasonably good, and The Economist, the Financial Times, and The New York Times are better than most. Many other print sources are execrably bad: Time Magazine, Newsweek, and the print dailies of most major U.S. cities, or papers such as USA Today. They are irrelevant, uninformative, distracting, and information-poor. They're not notably prone to yellow-journalism incitement, which is almost worse: they're both bad AND uninteresting. Print is no guarantee of quality, only of delay.

My preferred sources:

Long-form media programmes. On the Media (WNYC), Fresh Air (WHHY), The World (WBUR), and Paul Kennedy's Ideas (CBC) are my regular beat. With the exception of The World (a news magazine), each typically offers longer-form presentation, with 1-4 segments per hour, or roughly 10-15 minutes of treatment on a topic, minimum. Many are weekly, which required discarding a great deal of information that doesn't fit the hour. Each is pre-recorded, which is to say, well edited.

That last point is a particular disappointment with the BBC and NPR news magazines particularly: as they've shifted from a generally pre-recorded (sometimes by several days, though often by only a few hours or even minutes) format to live, the glitches of live broadcast have imposed themselves rudely and distractingly. I particularly noted this during the Boston Marathon bombing coverage in which the BBC attempted to have live, on-the-street coverage of the manhunt, which ended up mostly being an on-the-air troubleshooting of low-quality audio conveying low-density information (largely zero or none). The product of the 1990s may have sacrificed a slight bit of timeliness, but was vastly more relevant, prepared, and polished.

OTM's look at the alt-right and racism, this past week, was a particularly excellent instance and an exemplar of the class.

Books. There are materials which are simply best obtained from domain experts who've had months, or years, or decades to digest and present a concept. Oddly enough, there's a counterpoint to haw fast-moving present events are in that the timeless and ageless themes seem more important.

Wikipedia. For long-developing and complex stories, it is vastly superior in information delivery to a daily broadcast or print format, or even a weekly digest.

Selected online sources. Hewing to high-quality, and away from anything in the least sensationalistic. I add crap sources to my router's blocklist with impunity.

Disconnecting. Mostly I actively go out of my way to avoid ongoing distraction. I'm managing to remain reasonably informed, though that may of course be my own confirmation biases showing.