1. an independent youtuber, who gives their opinion, can admit their bias, and is able to operate on good faith while allowing open discussions with people they disagree with
2. a corporate "journalist" who's integrity has become second rate in the age of the internet, who uses language as an instrument to get people to admit what they want them to admit in the most petty way possible
i can agree with 1, i don't think 2 fits the definition anymore. it used to be the best we had for a few decades, but that age is over now. i don't think 1 has any problem with admitting what should be an area of skepticism. however, i don't think that 2 is actually a journalist as they're not motivated to share information, they're instead motivated by the narratives of their employer