I wasn't aware of this, but apparently, yes, he does.[1][2] I think it's important to note that this doesn't have to be because he expects something in return, he could just think funding good news organizations is a good thing to do. It's also important to keep in mind that even if he doesn't expect favorable reporting doesn't mean he doesn't get it anyways as a byproduct.

1: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-awa...

2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding

Journalism’s Gates keepers

Columbia Journalism Review https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu... A useful article

The problem I have with articles like that is they are long on innuendo and implication and short on data. We get a lot of "not much bad is said about them" without much comparison to sources that aren't funded by them that might be more neutral.

In the end it's very hard to tell if they are talking about pit bulls or puppies. Having nothing bad to say about a dog breed known for high profile attacks, dog fighting, and other negatively associated events would be extremely suspect. Having nothing bad to say about puppies in general is expected of such a benign subject. I doubt the Gates foundation is either a pit bull or a puppy, but I can't responsibly make an assumption even about what side of the spectrum they are from an article about how suspicious the absence of criticism is for an organization which is supposedly trying to do good as a charity.