The opinion of three journalists working for the same retail tech conglomerate is hardly "research." WaPo has suffered a Pulitzer Prize revocation in 1981 for fabricating stories, has continuously circulated advertisements from China Watch (operated by the CCP), repeatedly settled on libelous claims made for profit, and on numerous occasions assisted in providing platforms for anti-Western and anti-Semitic groups supported by Iran. It's a joke to imagine they would do research in hopes of drawing any conclusion but the one that makes them the most money.
It would take some time to fact check your assertions, so I only looked into the first one. It involved a single reporter, not systemic plagiarism by the paper, and she was fired when it came to light. The Post's ombudsman, who handles readers' complaints as well as internal problems, undertook an investigation.
You're too generous. It's all media, it's all for profit, and it's all unethical. No editor will willingly submit a piece that makes his/her company, or conglomerate overlords LESS money. That is, unless he/she plans to change careers. The circumstances imply that only the most submissive journalists, who are most willing to lie, are left in action.
Yeah, I guess I couldn't find any examples of journalism for profit since 1981.
Or maybe, I chose an old example to make a point about how it's always been for profit.
