[trs8080]

> the bias in high-profile papers was already predominantly anti-tech

As opposed to what? Publishing tech companies' press releases verbatim? Advertisements for apps?

Journalism exists to speak truth to power - you say "anti-tech" but the reality is that tech companies have been trying to convince us for years that what they're doing is some exercise in advancing humanity, "disrupting" industries (read: breaking laws) and "connecting the world" (read: undermining democracy, manipulating psychological triggers for addiction). It's a good thing that journalists have at least managed to remain critical - I would prefer to shine a light on billionaire VCs and the companies they're funding rather than doting coverage.

[kodyo]

Journalists have also propagandized in favor of every expansion of the state and every every war western democracies have chosen to engage in. Journalists deserve to be mistrusted.

[tomjen3]

Journalism exists to tell what is going on and why. They are not part of some post-modern maxism class struggle.

Except as part of interviews, they should not be speaking to power at all, they should be explaining things to their readers, so they can make an informed decision. Sometimes that means telling them what the powers that be are planing to do and explain it better than they can, sometimes it means digging through expenses and reveal that power corrupts.