> I wonder if the WaPo would be interested in publishing any critiques of social media effects on children, given their ties to Big Tech... Let's see... "New report: Most teens say social media makes them feel better, not worse, about themselves (2018)"
Oh come on. You're either being misleading, or have been mislead. What you wrote doesn't make any sense:
1. Why would the existence of an example of one type of article show the absence of a different type? It's not like the Washington Post cannot report on multiple sides of an issue.
2. A single article from five years ago? How is that supposed to support such a sweeping statement?
3. It's not hard, at all, to find examples of the WaPo "publishing any critiques of social media effects on children": "Instagram is even worse than we thought for kids. What do we do about it? (2021)" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/09/17/instagra...), probably all the articles in this search https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%2..., etc.
> Corporate media claims... remember this one? "NAFTA and China WTO will raise the standard of living for all Americans!"
As far as I can tell, you just made that up. Literally no Google hits: https://www.google.com/search?q="NAFTA+and+China+WTO+will+ra... (at the time of this writing, it looks like your comment hasn't been indexed yet). So, no, no one "remembers" that one.
And even if if the WaPo did publish an article claiming exactly that (most likely some kind of advocacy on the op-ed page), what's the big deal? Do you think they should censor articles like that? Perhaps by using their precognitive abilities to know who the future will prove wrong?
It's kind of ironic that many people's who criticize the media for being some kind of propaganda rag issue critiques that implicitly advocate for it to be a propaganda rag.