Is somebody automatically disreputable based upon their political affiliation? If so, perhaps MacCarthyism is alive and well! It would be fair game, of course to analyze the article and list the reasons it is or isn't accurate.
Nobody took issue with her political affiliation.
The Washington Times does not skip research to get their publication out first, they deliberately craft misleading and false stories in order to serve their conservative narrative.
Sibling comments are correct:
The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew.
The Washington Times is a conservative rag.
See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-so...
It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).
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.
You also have in the news industry what is acceptable fact. There are facts, which if any one party find them negative to anyone reported, simply won't be reported. This is why the ideologies of China (blocking or discrediting news) fit so well with the US right now - we're already basically doing this.
Have you looked?
The New York Times issues corrections almost every day: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
Literally two seconds of googling.
Just not having jokes/clickbait allowed makes HN special.
An example for the strong bias that I know of is how much HN crowd thought that the iPhone would flop.
One is a description of which tribe you belong to, the other is, "my salary depends on producing results these people like."
I'm really not an at all costs kind of guy. If my tribe ideals are good and needed, they should be elected.