Vegeroth, you remind me of a guy in this episode of This American Life:
His small town in Alaska is riled up over what the town's official stance on illegal immigration should be. He makes a large effort to educate himself on the issue, only to find out later that most of the sources he used to learn about the issue were deliberately misleading him.
Likewise, I think it's commendable that you're trying to educate yourself on issues. I still don't understand your interest in US politics given that you live and vote in Canada. Hopefully you're this passionate about what's going on up north and become a knowledgeable and active participant in democracy.
I'm not intimately familiar with a lot of the news sources you've listed, but a lot of them like PragerU and Joe Rogan look like they would qualify more as entertainment than news. I guess similar to how a lot of people on the left consider the Daily Show as their main source of news. Or talk radio on both ends of the political spectrum. Entertainment and opinion pieces can be useful to get issues into your purview, but I don't think they're great ways to learn about the actual facts. These sources have bias and use omission of information to "win" you over to their side.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the TV channels, websites, or both, but CNN and Fox News are terrible TV channels. They're both basically entertainment. There's a huge focus on their personalities (e.g. Andersen Cooper, Bill O'Reilly) more so than the substantive journalism. CNN's website is okay, albeit littered with opinion pieces and paid "sponsored content". It's not bad if you stick to the news articles, although not particularly in-depth either. I'm not familiar with Fox News' website, but their organization has a very bad history with empowering sexual harassers (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes) so I'm not inclined to give them a shot.
I get most of my news from NPR. Their website is okay, but doesn't have the volume of content that CNN or Fox News are going to have. I mostly listen to them on the radio on my drive to and from work and that's my primary source of news these days.
Al Jazeera used to have a separate English company that was great and formed mostly of former BBC journalists. They still have an English site, but there's a lot less content than the separate one used to have. They're state funded by Qatar so you have to keep that in mind when reading anything where there could be a conflict of interest. I usually only go to them these days when I'm seeking another view on a story I've heard elsewhere.
Likewise for the BBC. I can't say I go there very often. I used to be able to listen to the BBC news hour on the drive home, but the local station moved them to a different time slot.
I don't know who John Cardillo is nor do I really care, but videos like this aren't journalism. Black Lives Matter is a movement in the US that's a response to a growing number of cases getting media attention of police killing black citizens. It's not perfect. Some of the examples the movement has rallied behind end up, for lack of a better term, more gray than black and white. But there are a staggering number of cases that are black and white. Like Philando Castile:
The dude was basically straight up murdered by a police office who got off without any criminal convictions.
The title of the video:
is a clear case of whataboutism. BLM isn't about black-on-black crime. Black-on-black crime is irrelevant in the discussion. Bringing that up in the discussion is either misguided at best or racist at worst. Again, I don't know what your interest is in US politics, but this is the 2nd time you've brought up BLM and in a negative light. I don't know what your angle is here or why you're even so interested given that the black population is Canada is significantly lower than in the US (about 3% of the total population vs. 12% in the US).