Conversely, what? Nobody asserted that liberals possessed a healthy skepticism or that liberal news outlets don't also continuously stream nonsense.
If you'd like me to make some assertions, I'd happily do so, but if you're looking for a partisan viewpoint to attempt to deconstruct, you'll not find one here.
The point is that you should be aware of individual biases, and should diversify your media consumption.
Personally, I find this boring. Perhaps you agree.
Is Jeff Bezos running for Political office too?
You just moved the line from running for Presidential party nomination, skipped over mayor of major city, and jumped right to billionaires.
Add on; If all of a sudden you can't be wealthy and own (part of?) a media company, it really hurts the quality of journalism; you'd be left with small town or independent blogs; more susceptible to fake news -- and, more concerning, fear of publishing.
Virtually all the UK papers are now narrowly owned by individual billionaires whose agendas are very visible in the paper.
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/re...
Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is
refusing to buckle under pressure and change the
rules of engagement for his news outlet's political
reporters—who are forbidden from investigating him
or any other Democratic White House hopeful.
Bloomberg News journalists will 'just have to learn
to live with some things,' he told CBS News in an
interview that aired Friday morning.
'They get a paycheck,' the former New York City mayor
lectured, 'but with your paycheck comes some restrictions
and responsibilities.'[1]
'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...
* Factual summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says...
* Opinionated: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...
(Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’"
They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow!
My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.
Since you're new here, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html may be worth skimming, particularly "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B.
I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.