The point has more teeth since it is the same website. The point is that no individual or organization is perfectly good or perfectly bad, and we need to be able to recognize the good without it being treated as an endorsement of the bad.
Except that it does. Life is nuanced. OP is trying to make a point based on a couple of headlines, but the actual content of the articles explain things a bit more clearly and nuanced, and are a lot less "THE SKY IS FALLING!", than OP seems to be insinuating they are based on their titles alone.
There are things that are knowable in this world, a website that claims A but does the opposite is one of those things.
Trust means said website putting their money where their mouth is. The only defense here is that it's an opinion piece and doesn't represent the website as a whole, but the solution is to possibly trust the author but not the website.
Since we're talking about nuance here, a counterexample doesn't invalidate the point being made, especially about media in general.
You're performing a trick here in here of hiding the individual differences between two separate authors by referring to "a website" as a monolith. (And then you semi-walk-it-back, but treat that as somehow... a strange thing to do?)
That's the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that helps promote a black-and-white us-and-them narrative.
I generally don't even agree with Brooks on a lot of things, so I'd go even further and suggest that in many cases one should evaluate separate texts independently (this can lead to some problems at the extreme ends, but again, it's not a black and white rule). It's hard to see anything helpful coming from your sort of blanket dismissal response.
This isn't reddit or HN where the content is purely user driven, this is a website that publishes what they themselves choose to publish, and we're free to judge them for that holistically.
One suspects that if an author submitted an article denying the holocaust, the website in question would refuse to publish it.
They can be judged by what they publish, and they acknowledge this by not publishing everything that's proffered to them.
I mean the website isn't a monolith; some parts are good, some parts aren't. Different writers have different perspectives.
I think TFA is trying to argue that it's possible to see the world as a basically safe place, despite the presence of this kind of inconsistency. The website's not perfect, but it seems like it has some things going for it, and anyway you're smart and can get by just fine in a world with imperfect media :-)
