OK, here's what I think about the MSM.
By the MSM I'm talking about "legacy" entities, such as the NYT, WaPo, PBS, NPR and The Guardian. They're the only ones I watch or read. (Actually, I don't read the WaPo because we're already spending money on the NYT, but I get a sense for it second hand.)
Basically, I'm very grateful for their presence.
We need large, well funded entities to muster the resources to identify fake news and pictures, as the fakery gets more and more sophisticated.
Besides the ability to marshall resources to deal with techno-fakery, we also need entities with the resources to scan the whole world for news. Someone here posted a long list of news sources with integrity, but their range is limited. And I don't have time or energy to consult dozens of outlets.
As I watch half the country half of our federal legislators and justices lose their respect for the norms that have held us together for over a century, I'm glad that the main stream of the fourth estate as adhering to their norms of truth telling.
They say, "The MSM is run by rich people who will do anything to make more money. Well, sure, it's run by people who want to make money. Even PBS and NPR want to stay healthy. But the way these entities keep their audience growing is to continue to deliver what the audience expects, which is the truth. They can't afford to deliver fake news. If they make a mistake they acknowledge it.
They say that the MSM hasn't ridden the Trump child-care answer (and others) like it did the Biden debate performance. The story with Biden was the response, the growing response of the Democratic party and leadership. There's been no such GOP reaction. It's ridiculous to say the MSM caused the Dem reaction, rather than the other way around. Still, as I said, I read/watch only the listed entities, and I saw clips of his child care answer at least a half dozen times.
Concluding from the presence of a conservative or even right wing opinion piece that the NYT is "for Trump" is ridiculous. I emphatically don't want the news agencies I rely on to preach the left party line. I want them to be able to appeal to as broad an audience as possible so that broad audience hears the truth.
I take comfort in watching the MSM try to walk the tight rope of being politically impartial while refusing to give up on representing the truth. I say "try" advisedly, because sometimes it's taken a while. They learned from 2016 and gradually shifted from weasel wording about Trump's lies to religiously leading every quote of one of his lies with the word "lie." It took some time to recognize how far gone he was. To quote a great lady, their values didn't change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
They don't always get it right, and can be beholden too much to the corporations that own them, but your rank-and-file reporters generally do a fine job (that is, before the editors and publishers get involved).
The rise of independent media has become competition long needed and they seem to have an effect on legacy, corporate media.
It's still up to the media consumer to know a shit sandwich when served one, though.
Learn to know when you're served one, consume more than one source and you'll navigate the information ecosystem and emerge as well-informed. 
