The older I've gotten, the more I've read news stories that are directly related to me, my industry or people I'm in regular contact with. The percentage of these stories that are demonstrably false even on a basic fact checking level is 100%. In most instances, the reporting tells the exact opposite story from the events that happened and every single part of the story is misrepresented.
I started to see this a lot with Vice and BuzzFeed but it's crept into WaPo and most notably the NYT. I can't trust the Grey Lady anymore.
Because op-eds are for controversial positions that are of public interest but aren't supported well enough or neutral enough for a news article. That's the definition. If it's clearly true you won't find it in an op-ed in general in any newspaper.
I'm sick of people who can't be bothered to look up terms they don't know using them to spuriously attack institutions that are crucial to our liberty in America.
If bias and inaccuracy was random then "it's just interesting blogs" might be an acceptable way for op-ed sections to go. When the problems trend obviously in one direction it becomes clear that the entire organisation has an agenda.
crucial to our liberty in America
As you may have guessed, I'm not American, and I'm sick of meeting Americans who have completely bizarre and distorted views of the UK because of the factually inaccurate nonsense they read in this supposedly high quality "newspaper".
I don't have the expertise necessary to evaluate this myself. Two issues that jumped out at me, however: unherd doesn't mention that some of the articles they criticize are opinion pieces, and if you Google keywords from their first takedown you'll find more nuanced coverage.
From that I'm (possibly unfairly) categorizing the article you linked as likely of minimal value, and didn't read it through.