It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field.
What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media.
Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters.
This is fundamental to what it does as an org.