Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet.
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone.
(Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.)
However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.