@ffj - That depends on how you define "news". As far as the political discourse goes, I would include everything right down to low-information voters who rely strictly on facebook memes (I know a few) or a single talk-show radio (or podcasts) to form their thoughts on the world.
Some Pew Research numbers ...
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/th ... -consumer/
http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/ne ... orms-2016/
Most people still get their "news" from TV. Here I would fully expect the right to be tuned into Fox News (the biggest channel) and the left to be tuned into a distribution along NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC.
You need to weigh them by viewership to get an idea of what the average person is thinking. Fox is more than twice as big than the second and third biggest put together (CNN and MSNBC). You do not have to go out of your way to tune into Fox News and leave it on that channel. To find a right-wing talk show, all you have to do is to turn on your AM radio. I think counting channels or outlets is too simplistic. If I measured media-bias by what was found on the AM-band, I would conclude that radio is heavily biased to the right. But I don't think one can do "science" that way ...
The second most popular source, not far behind TV, is social media. Only 20% still read newspapers ... dunno if we're talking national newspapers here or just the local rag. Most interestingly, those social media users who follow the news the least are most likely to rely on forwards/shares from friends/family whereas heavy consumers are not.
The average person would thus be more likely to tune their TV into hearing whatever bias they're already primed and desire to hear while ignoring the opposing channels. I'll bet money that for every person you can find who flips channels to see the same story on both sides, I can find someone on either side who never ever does that. I talk politics with people who exclusively watch Fox and MSNBC respectively. It's like they live in entirely different universes. It's not just that they see things differently. It's that they see different things. Something could be the most important crisis on one channel .. meanwhile, the other person has never even heard about that issue.
There was a study once that showed that liberals were more likely to unfriend people over political disagreements than conservatives on social media. This was, on the conservative side, hailed as showing how conservatives were more open-minded. Then there was a second study that showed that liberals tended to have a wider range of friends (politically speaking) than conservatives who choose their friends in a more .. lets just say politically narrow-minded manner already... and that the hardening up simply meant that liberals were becoming more like conservatives during the 2016 election.
So now there are fewer people with overlaps and therefore confirmation bias in the respective bubbles is rampant! As for the low-information voters on social media (either side now), it means that they pretty much only hear what their still approved friends are forwarding. This is also why fake news (in the original meaning of the concept) worked so well because it could survive/propagate in bubbles. Indeed, people admitted to forwarding news they knew to be fake simply because they thought it was fun to play along. Yay sportsball!!
I would also note, that liberals are much more politically active on social media now (as far as I can tell) under Trump than they were under Obama. Conversely, conservatives are much less politically active than they were under Obama. There's absolutely a demand for unflattering reporting about the opposition---it's just that it's coming from the other side now. MSNBC has grown spectacularly in viewership since Trump was elected, for example.