WaPo and NYTimes writers are amazingly adept at using weasel words in their articles so they are not sued for libel. They know that when other outlets refer to their article, the other outlets will not be so careful and then a total lie will be believed by most MSM-consuming people. It is very discouraging.
It’s also discouraging that many people think that a newspaper is a source. A person who participated in a conversation, invented something, attended a conference, etc., can be a source but not a newspaper.
You're right. Bezos's strategy in buying the WaPo was brilliant. He can disseminate propaganda but still have some plausible deniability. The paper I work for - up I-95 from the WaPo - gets most of its national and international news from the AP - hardly a paragon of objectivity. Local news is still covered by local reporters, but looking at the Twitter feeds of some of these "journalists" it's obvious they are less a "journalist" and more an activist.
"Discouraging" is an apt word. I find it discouraging that newspapers with a decidedly left-wing bent are seen as unimpeachable sources - gospel, in fact - but any source that counters that bent (Washington Times, Newsmax, OANN and the like) is dismissed as fringe or crackpot.
So much for a free press...