Actually, if you look at the source for that claim[0], it says that some were from BuzzFeed News and some from BuzzFeed; they're not the same.
Besides, it's an almost meaningless statistic on its own without some point of comparison, isn't it? How (un)critical were they of other public figures?
Personally, I think Reuters does a pretty good job. They tend to clearly distinguish between news and opinion. Mostly, but not always, their news reporting is just facts and little interpretation.
Too many networks either blur or outride hide the distinguishment between news and opinion. E.g. you'll get a bit of both in the same article. For example, CNN, NBC and FOX. Although, and I'll probably get downvotes for this, FOX News (online at least) probably does slightly better on this. Opinion pieces are generally visibly labelled as such at the top of the page, but they dont always make it clear on the front page in the leading headlines. And on actual news stories, they tend to present facts as is, without interpretation or opinion (again, not always the case, but I think they try harder).
I used to read CNN, NBC as well as FOX, but was driven away from CNN from their flagrant bias in reporting news. NBC drove me away with their site redesign when every article had to have a large picture associated with it on the front page. Made it too hard to figure out what the articles were about and loaded at a snails pace. FOX has done some similar things, but the front page loads fairly snappily. Reuters is probably the best though. Site is responsive, mostly text links, except for the main article in a section.
How a “legitimate” news organization only had a single critical article on Obama out of 100 articles written can’t be considered “legitimate.”
All legitimate news articles should be neutral and objective.