Good news, bad news, guys. The good news is that people are right to try and read between the lines of the news media and not take it all at face value. Possession of certain analytical skills and an amount of media literacy is a useful attribute. And there are undoubtedly serious flaws in news content in liberal democratic media systems (nothing to do with the political party - it's what we call them in the media analysis business). This is mostly to do with corporate ownership and the relentless pursuit of profitability, incidentally, but I won't go into that here.
The bad news is that because not many people actually possess those skills, they assume all media sources to be biased to fit their particular hobbyhorse or prejudice. They cherrypick facts to fit their theories. They see something they don't like on the BBC and it's because the BBC is biased. They don't see something they think should be there and it's because it has been hushed up. A piece of propaganda that is put out on various 'niche interest' websites (like Stop the War - bit of an agenda there, in the name, don't you think?) is not reported anywhere in the mainstream press not because it is not true, or because there is no proof, but because there's a conspiracy amongst all the liberal democratic media systems in the world to hush it up. Which are all controlled by the government, apparently. Or 'elites', as Profs Herman and Chomsky would put it, like good Marxists.
To equate the editorial control of content and the selection of stories based on news values that goes on at the BBC (as just one example of a western media system Public Service Broadcaster) with something like Press TV or Russia Today, assuming they are all equally biased, shows a serious lack of understanding about how the media work. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.