I'm betraying a fundamental understanding of your point :)
Is this what you mean?
The Washington Post (along with the Guardian) was one of the first publishers of material leaked by Edward Snowden as part of its new reporting function. The Washington Post, as part of its editorial function, also published an editorial[0] arguing that Obama should not issue a pardon for Snowden. Therefore, the Washington Post cannot (or should not, or has no credibility to) publish an article on Trump and net neutrality as part of its new reporting function because it's position on issuing a pardon for Edward Snowden is inconsistent with freedom (of speech).
I'm not sure which freedom you're referring to. Freedom of speech or freedom of the press would be the likely ones, I think.
If that's not a fair summary of what you mean, please feel free to correct or expand.