"Independent" news orgs do the same thing. Watch out for the next positive article about a person or organization and ask yourself if it was written by a journalist organisation seeking the truth or as a puff piece in collaboration with the subject. There is a pretty blurry line between news and advertising these days to a much greater extent than most realize.
> Watch out for the next positive article about a person or organization
The only reason this heuristic works is because news companies have become so untrustworthy that when left to their own devices they are only capable of writing negative articles about people. They never take the initiative to report positive news when a person or organization merits it. Even when a person or organization deserves praise, the media finds a way to spin it into a "if it bleeds, it leads" story.
Almost every major media organization does this. For example, impeachment coverage was carried live, while the discussion of the FISA abuses was mostly ignored. If media orgs were “seeking the truth,” they wouldn’t be selectively covering hearings that boost their narrative but fail to tell the complete story. Another example: Buzzfeed “News” had one critical story on Obama out of 100 total stories. Even if you love Obama, suggesting that he was “good” 99 out of 100 times is pure propaganda. Selective editing and coverage decisions are far more sinister than reputation management firms.
