Second example:

Headline: Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah planning to depart the White House

Your "actual" story: this was presented as fact, even though Sanders denied it

Analysis: So what? We have plenty of examples of Sanders denying something which later turned out to be true.

If it's plausibly not true, especially if the subject of the story is denying the statement, then presenting it as a solid fact is misleading. How are you even debating this? The headline is presented as a fact (she is leaving). So what if it's possible she's lying in her refutation, that still doesn't mean it's a fact.

"Hey, some unnamed source told us that Bernie Sanders is planning a socialist uprising. Of course he denied it when asked, but I still see no problem in writing the headline 'Bernie Sanders is plotting a socialist uprising'"

The source was not primary, she denied it, and btw, I can't help to notice this story was five months ago and she's still there with no indication of leaving. I mean I honestly can't believe that you're justifying that and claiming it's not a misleading headline. Take a class on critical thinking or something.

It would seem to me that if misleading news stories move you to the point of "utter disgust," then you would be able to recall which ones, in your opinion, are the "worst offenders."

You clearly don't get how the human brain works.

If I didn't welcome and respect your opinion I would not bother speaking to you

Of course you would, because you're trying to combat the notion that liberal media peddled in your liberal sub misleads the public.

But unfortunately I can't see this issue the way you seem to if you don't make a compelling case for it, and so far you have not done so.

And I'm not going to because you've already made up your mind.

that an unhealthy number of Republicans dismiss accurate reporting as "fake," seemingly because admitting the reporting is true might cause them to have to adjust their worldview and maybe change some of their deeply-held stances

I love it. You accuse Republicans of being closed minded and blocking out their political opposition, yet Republicans are force-fed liberal talking points nonstop just like everyone else is. It is essentially impossible to live in a conservative echo chamber. Watching any media for five minutes will present you with talking points from the left. Meanwhile liberals peddle completely bogus talking points and never hear the conservative rebuttal at all. You think conservatives are generally more closed minded? Look at yourself. You're going to great lengths to deny that you'll find articles promoted in r/politics that are misleading. I mean, talk to people outside of this subreddit out that, see if they agree with you.

Again, conservatives call stories "fake new" when the implication and narrative is fake. I get that that doesn't fall under your definition of "fake news" but nobody cares.