I don't consider this specific to a single media outlet (or ownership group) and I don't consider this specific to a specific company. Media outlets will publish anything anti-tech they can now because it helps stoke this raging fire. Just be careful of what comes out of the ashes. When asking "why was this published" when reading an article, don't get stopped too early by finding some link on the specific article, who wrote it, or who it mentions by name. Instead, think about the broader approach and intended effect.
Because there are very specific reasons to be suspicious of Fox or WSJ articles and if this anti-Google article had appeared in the NYT it would have been better and free of suspicion.
Anti-Tesla articles are another example of places to be suspicious of the source because a) day traders trying to short the stock have deliberately tried to spread damaging information and b) fossil fuel companies and regular car manufacturers have a vested interest.
That’s not to say all anti-Tesla articles are wrong, just one should be careful that you aren’t being a rube to propaganda.
Also, Facebook wasn’t dinged for collecting data, they were dinged for allowing a third party to scrape it.
The people using Facebook are quite aware of all of the stuff they’re telling FB interests, likes, groups they join, what they don’t want is third parties who shouldn’t know, to know.
I don’t care that Facebook knows what articles I liked. But I don’t want Cambridge Analytica to know in an individually identifiable manner.