That's manifestly not what I wrote.
The OP cited a post from Breitbart which has a history of reporting what the President characterized as "fake news". The President himself fired Steve Bannon. And since - as shown by the quote - you just agreed that Breitbart - along with other news outlets - can and does get it wrong, why should anyone gamble they might have gotten it right for a change? Why not do as I suggested and just skip the liberal/conservative filter and get the press release directly from the company?
Or, are you concerned that without someone else applying a partisan political filter for you, the press release might not conform to your viewpoint and you would be left to interpret the press release on your own?
It wasn't a press release but found in required guidance document filed with the SEC which I posted later. Both the WSJ and Breitbart stories were based upon it but the WSJ is behind a paywall. I trust SEC filings even more than a "press release" as there are legal duties that entail if a company posts misleading information in these. Company press releases in many cases are worse fiction than media stories.
If you use the standard of Steven Bannon firing to discredit Breitbart, then you must disqualify CBS for Dan Rather ,Uncle Walter's misreporting on Tet, and its failed reporting on Westmoreland years ago, you must disqualify the NYT for hiring Jayson Blair, having a German agent as their WWI era reporter, and a reporter, Walter Duranty, who lied about the existence of the Holodomor in Ukraine and many other things. The Washington Post published another fabulist and promoted Bob Woodward who claimed an interview with dying William Casey which could not have happened. The New Republic had Stephen Glass among others, NBC had Brian Williams and the Dateline fiasco on pickup trucks etc., and so forth. CNN had Saddam Hussein's minions edit any reporting from there and the whole blown up nerve gas use in Vietnam fake story as well. Reuters had stringers inventing stories, photoshopping pictures, etc. AP has been caught in fibs and distortions and so forth.
Often entire subject matters are considered off limits for the media (lying by omission) that upset gentry liberals, some are issues that only pop up based on party, etc. Sugar daddies paying to play also come up, Bezos did not buy the Washington Post to make money but to parley influence in Washington, Carlos Slim did not purchase a large stake in the NYT for gain, etc. Others with large fortunes do the same. Under your rules applied to Breitbart, you would not read nor listen to any news whatsoever as all of these news sources have had people with prominent issues of truthfulness, corruption-direct or through pushing desired outcomes regardless of facts, distortions of opinion, and so forth.
So, most people have a couple of choices. One is to disbelieve everything by everyone which can leave someone quite ignorant. Two, only believe sources that you believe tell you the truth---which is going to be a bit different for everyone and risks confirmation bias, Three, the Constanza option--only use those sources that are opposite from your inclinations for information--which avoids confirmation bias but runs aground on sins of omission of facts, Four, dig up the original sources (multiple ones are preferred) and decide for yourself--time consuming, difficult, etc. In option 4, you are still at risk for confirmation bias by choosing to believe sources and data to support your inclinations and risks of omission.
I use the idea of trust but verify myself. I have limited time in the day to discuss whether or not Pluto is a planet, whether hi carb, keto, etc. is the ideal diet, whether or not dogs use the bathroom on a north south axis due to planetary magnetism, the personal proclivities of celebrities, etc. Thus, I invest little time or effort in these stories and have little stake in whether or not they are "true",
On things that actually matter to me, I do the time and research or do sufficient groundwork on things like retirement planning, reloading information, health information, that I trust the source(s) with periodic rechecks.
On things of marginal importance, I do cursory research to more or less inform myself and put it out there. It doesn't upset me that someone finds that I may be mistaken, uses different sources that indicate another truth, or has a different opinion on a matter of taste. In the case of Dicks, it is of marginal importance to me whether or not Dick's is growing or not. I will not shop there as a matter of personal preference due to Ed Stack nor invest in their company. Others may feel differently and that is fine.
In the O/P's post, it was attacked for not being from the proper source (e.g. this is the genetic logical fallacy that information is false based on who made the statement). A more helpful response would be to find the press release and post it yourself and allow others to determine whether or not the original story was distorted. This was not a case of what would happen if you filled a .30-06 case with Unique and set off a round but merely a dispute of which source is preferable. I did cursory investigation, found half a dozen links, and posted the original source which appears to be the required SEC stock guidance filing for the WSJ and Breitbart stories. I did not find a press release on the issue but really do not care as the SEC guidance speaks for itself without company pr gloss.
A lot of people may disdain Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Fox News, etc. while others disdain the NYT, Wash Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. depending on what stories interest them and what is their general political outlook. A lot of what is in these sources is only opinion which resembles the rear end similarity of individuals. A lot of it is merely reporting a few quotes from wire services or other sources and repackaging it with a heaping of opinion.
Very little of it deals with actually talking with sources and trying to get it right.
To me, our media is like the old Soviet joke regarding the newspapers of Pravda and Izvestia. In Pravda there is no truth and in Izvestia there is no news. Pravda means truth in Russian and Izvestia means news. Russians learned to cope by noticing what events in their life was not covered and how events were reported. The rumor mills were rife. For example, if the news was so bad that even the papers covered it, then it must be so bad that it could not be covered up. FWIW, I have talked to reporters including one from a source that Iisted above, on some issues in the past and when my bland not spicy academically correct statements of fact were not enough, the stories never ran. I have known other interviewees that have had their statements totally mangled and often in some way to spur further controversy. Unless you can handle a cross-examination like an expert witness in court, dealing with the press is best with a written statement.
Thus, one can get news tidbits even if you are reading a biased source. One can use these tidbits to conduct further investigation/research to determine whether or not the real story was reported. With the internet, it is relatively easy to check with a couple of keystrokes whether or not the reporting was fair, objective, and balanced if it matters to you. Post the additional information if you think that others should know. If it doesn't matter to you or you cannot indicate that the O/P's story's facts were flawed, then so what.