The media tries very hard to not openly lie most of the time. Instead, it's about emphasis, framing, and who gets heard vs. who is blacklisted. This means they repeat and platform lies and run with them in editorials, but it's not the kind of thing where you can point to something they published a year ago and say to someone else, "a-ha! Here they are plainly lying!"

In addition to the recommendations of Citations Needed, Manufacturing Consent, and fair.org, I recommend Inventing Reality, The Politics of Genocide, and Washington Bullets.

I also recommend taking any recent article that has annoyed you and walking through its sourcing with them. If you're informed on Xinjiang this will be an easy topic. They will experience serious cognitive dissonance when you pull up the literal Pulitzer Prize-winning article, point out that it's based on trusting their ability to recognize and validate expertise, and that it cites Zenz and Ruser (the latter being employed by a think tank funded by the Australian DoD) and was supported by the same group that funds Radio Free Asia. Ask why the supposed best journalists on the planet are unquestioningly citing a ridiculous sinophobic anti-semite and a military-funded dweeb with no qualifications who constantly misidentifies structures and simply calls them experts. Why are they less competent than a middle schooler at vetting sources?

And the answer, of course, is that they are actually better than that but choose not to when it suits their editorial slant, thus legitimizing fringe opinions that suit the interests of the powerful (you can say capitalists if your audience is anti-capitalist).