I've looked at coverage of things I was personally familiar with - particular subcultures, the rural area I grew up in, the field I work in - and seen a similar pattern. The inaccuracies didn't seem to be ideologically driven (indeed they sometimes went against what I think of as particular outlets' biases) but they were very much there.

Anecdotally, whenever I've had insider knowledge of a news story, it's always been the case that some of the basic facts are reported wrong. Even small local newspapers twist the truth slightly in order to present a more easily digested narrative.

Maybe they did not have insider access to info and were wrong? You don’t have all day to do research on news, you have to rush it out i guess?

It's not just about news and journalism.

When I was in my late teens and eagerly devouring the Whole Earth Catalog and its successor Coevolution Quarterly for their reviews and pointers to new tools and ideas, it was easy to trust what I saw written there. Until one issue when they had a long survey of backpacking equipment, which even at 17 was something I knew quite a lot about. It was ridiculous, so bad (*)

Most people who write for a living don't know as much about the things they write about as people who do those things as the central part of their lives.

But it's worse than that: even when the author is a bona fide expert in the subject, there's still plenty of room for disagreement within the field.

The dream of reading "authoritative" accounts of more or less anything is a dream. Instead of being mad that journalists and other writers don't live up to your dream, accept this situation as it is, and understand that deepening your understanding of anything will require significant effort on your part. That doesn't mean that there are not better and worse sources of information, and understanding how to identify this is important. But there's nobody who is going to write "the true story" because there is no true story, just a complicated mess that you can put more or less effort into understanding.

(*) granted, some of what made it so bad was the clash between my UK-based understanding of gear and conditions, and their western US equivalent.

That does not matter, it is just an aesthetical thing.

It’s like when they report that some pandas got offspring in captivity in zoo X.

Even if they lied about it, even if they invent a new country where there are celebrations, it makes no difference.

It is useful to consume and fact check news on what could have an effect on your life.

It also brings about the bias you are talking about.

Because the newly born panda might matter to the local veterinarian.

Well my train of thought certainly took a 180 degree turn there..

More like, the zoo pr team reached out to news and other organizations months in advance of the panda birth to create tens of thousands of dollars of marketing and word of mouth, in order to increase zoo attendance, donations, and memberships.

Well, also, people like pandas because they're cute and cuddly and as such they like to read stories about baby pandas.

Not everything is part of some giant capitalist conspiracy. Sometimes people just like pandas.

It's not a capitalist conspiracy, it's just the path of least resistance, if you are in the morning meeting deciding what stories to cover, it's a slow newsday and you have a press release from the zoo announcing the birth of the panda it's easier to just report on that than to go looking for a story.

You're right, but that's not the scenario the comment I responded to was implying.

There's a difference between "oh look, there's a baby panda, this is an easy one" and participating in a months-long coordinated campaign designed to make money.

And where is this news outlet that specializes in non-sensational things?