What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true.
When you publish a story about someone that fails to mention a relevant detail that is present on that person's Wikipedia page, that is not an accident, that is a deliberate omission. In this case, the relevant section was highly visible, and was five sentences long. Nobody writing this article could have missed this.
Then there's the detail itself. When the detail undermines the author's argument, or changes the narrative of the story they're trying to tell, the author needs to address this. They need to mention the detail, and if they have other evidence that might move me to put less weight in that detail, then they can present it here. But to leave the detail out entirely, and hope that I don't google the person is dishonest, and assumes that their readers are stupid and uncritical.
When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative, then the educated public is more than justified writing off the publication in the manner that I have done.
tl;dr: Google stuff. Look for problems with the way the argument is presented, not for things you disagree with. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, you're allowed to write it off. If there's a pattern of not passing the sniff test in a particular way, you're allowed to call bullshit. I can't believe I have to fucking spell this out, but here we are.
