That might be true, but super biased negative authors end up pulling attention to themselves instead of convincing anyone of their point of view.

I think better reporting might present things in a neutral tone and let the reader decide for themselves.

Note that I think that goes for over the top positive sites too, that aren't skeptical enough.

I thought daring fireball/john gruber was too lenient wrt apple, but in the last couple years, he has become a little more skeptical, called out apple and generally done a better job of reporting.