Re checking sources, I would say that on avg, right and hard right sources tend to misrepresent the truth or lie outright. Far left sources tend to do the same thing. Left sources can bend the truth too to support their position, but usually not so bad that it creates a fabrication or completely misrepresents the truth. Center right, center, center left and left sources often prove to be the most factual. I say this based on accumulated knowledge and knowing enough that when something seems to be not right I will go and research it which often means tracking down the original report or research paper that the news/blog report claim is based on. I also try to be cognizant of the big picture and not let a single report that goes against the general trend of available info sway me into discounting that general trend. Now it's true that sometimes that this is the case where that one outlier is actually correct, but that doesn't happen often and given sometime it's also usually shown to be the correct position via follow up study or research. For example when one part of an ice sheet grows over a one or two year period we don't say that climate change is a hoax and the planet isn't warming but cooling, we instead look at the long term trends and other data and continue to monitor things to get a better understanding of what's happening.
So in the case of your Biden claim for example, yes he did put pressure on Ukraine, but not for the reasons you intimate. He also was not alone on that either, diplomats from other European nations, the IMF as well as anti-corruption advocates in the Ukraine all had legitimate concerns about Shokin and wanted him out. It also seems you have given no consideration to what many in the West wanted Shokin gone and you've gotten the timelines of the Burisma issues and Biden's son's time on the board all out of whack as well. There are several reports covering the whole thing from fairly reputable and well established agencies, two I thought were relatively good reads came from Bloomberg and the USA Today.
As an aside but related to this I'll suggest that you consider how bias (left/right) and accuracy (truth/facts) affect reporting. Personally I am ok with some bias and even expect it from most sources. As long as it's not too overt I thin the average reader is not going to get overwhelmed by it. What's not ok is factually incorrect reporting, and to be honest in this say and age it really shouldn't be happening as it's often easy to check sourcing. What is outright despicable is a combination of strong bias and outright lies or a strong bending of the truth. Your Biden claim? Well that's not to far from being outright despicable considering how easy it is to check out what happened.