Opinions and facts are distinct. Opinions separate out into categories of "agree", "disagree", "don't care", etc. Facts separate out into very different categories of "true", "untrue", "unsubstantiated either way", etc.
Yes, its good to be exposed to a broad spectrum of opinions. Yes, different sources can select different true facts to push an agenda and substantiate their own cause, and it is thus important to get true facts from multiple sources to get a complete picture. No, it is not a good idea to put unsubstantiated "facts" or outright untruths on equal footing as the truth.
You have to put all "facts" out there to show they are untrue. Who determines the "facts"? Conspiracy theorists get confirmation bias when you ignore them.
Facts are not hard to check. No one knows when and why fact checkers disagree. Fact checkers can't check intentions of a speaker nor do they follow up.
Yes, its good to be exposed to a broad spectrum of opinions. Yes, different sources can select different true facts to push an agenda and substantiate their own cause, and it is thus important to get true facts from multiple sources to get a complete picture. No, it is not a good idea to put unsubstantiated "facts" or outright untruths on equal footing as the truth.