A very fair and reasonable response.

" But from my perspective, the news outlets that you would call "reliable sources", are full of opinion analysis that I find misleading."

Here is how I judge the reliabiity of sources: 1) Is sufficient detail provided to allow the reader (if sufficiently motivated) to check the info for themselves? Are sources named, experimental methods described, etc. wherever possible? 2) Does the writer have actual expertise in the area in question? Or is it a chemist writing about economic policy? 3) What conflicts of interest are present? Here I refer both to the widely recognized financial COIs, but also to whether someone is an advocate for a political or social cause, whether taking a certain position would be helpful to their career, etc. 4) If an author fibs or draws conclusions that are clearly unwarranted anywhere in the article, the other conclusions all become suspect. So no, its not all about picking mainstream sources and rejecting "alternative" ones. A huge fraction of the articles here, perhaps 70% of the ones that I have the expertise to evaluate, incorporate one of the following:

1) A headline that implies something has been proven for which the text of the article provides little or no evidence (recent article declaring Judiasm as racial-superiority based religion and a second article declaring a French journalist had found Israel responsible for the November terrorist attacks in Israel and was arrested for doing so. A third article stated that Hillary had been "busted" for funding violent protests at the Trump rally, the source was the opinion of a former Trump campaign strategist)

2) Presents only one side of a complex debate in a manner that implies the issue is settled science, usually on the side of the minority view. (recent antidepressant article)

3) Presents a factually incorrect analysis of a situation by someone who does not have the expertise to correctly analyse it (recent article on pharmacy mergers, "Vitamin K shot for newborns is bad science", "Fed caused 93% of market's move since 2008")

But none of this bothers me nearly so much as the inevitability with which the shill accusations come out when someone points the problems out

As for the meningitis article:

I didn't actually see that particular article, but I agree with your analysis. My perception is that r/conspiracy contains a much higher percentage of these types of bullshit articles than many of the other subs, but I will consider your comment that I selectively see bullshit that I disagree with and will run through some of the other subs attempting to be objective. Its an interesting point and one that I will do my best to evaluate.