[lurking15]

> so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest

If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent?

I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction

[big_whack]

Independence from ownership isn't really a left/right principle. The Washington Post has their set of guiding principles online - I think from those it's pretty clear why there is discontent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/about-the-post

[j_maffe]

Independent doesn't mean unopinionated. As long as they're transparent about a set of ideals and principles that they follow through, being opinionated is perfectly fine for journalism.

[lurking15]

But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?

[j_maffe]

I don't accept anything that isn't properly cited and sufficient evidence is provided from reliable sources. Neutral news offerings (such as AP or Reuters) are of course a better source of news. It is however useful to subscribe to journals that has some form of basic agreement on fundamental values. For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.

This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.

[lurking15]

> For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.

You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas.

And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.

[j_maffe]

I said I wouldn't follow a news outlet. That doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain any opinions or arguments that challenge my own.

> And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly.

I will save myself writing your own words for you:

> You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking,