Not lying per se, but not really making claims supported by the preponderance of the evidence either.
What you said is a tautology. No news outlet contains all the news in the world. I just prefer that my news come from journalists and not billionaire propagandists.
I don't really care where the information comes from if it is accurate, and is not selected to support a particular conclusion.
If the outlet interprets the facts to tell you what conclusion to draw, they have left journalism and entered the world of commentary. Fox is the classic example of this.
It is quite egregious to put your interpretation of what the facts mean into the headline like
"Character.ai's Bankruptcy Documents Show the Economics of AI Don't Work" In fact the headline doesn't even hint at what the documents say, they jump straight to the claim of what they mean.
If the documents showed that their expenses per user were high enough that no amount of customers would have helped, that would be a claim of fact. They could report that. If the structure of their expenses and revenue was replicated across the industry, showing that as well might be sufficient for readers to draw the conclusion from the headline.
Really, the language used in that article is nailing their colours to the mast to declare themselves as taking a position and deliberately presenting everything to support it.
It is a little ironic that there are outlets concerned about AI removing our ability to think for ourselves. At the same time they like to publish works doing all the thinking for you.
Misquoting people always has been a strategy. I see how this page could be used to further follow that path. But the root of the problem is the billionaire owned media. Their interests and the interest of citizens run one against the other. Lying to the public brings more power to billionaires, so their media empires always lie.
We need independent non-billionaire owned media: - https://www.404media.co - https://defector.com - https://aftermath.site