I don't understand why reporting "competing" information is a problem. I'm not reading a news piece to get the author's opinion on something, I'm reading a news

I don't understand why reporting "competing" information is a problem. I'm not reading a news piece to get the author's opinion on something, I'm reading a news piece to get enough information to form my own opinion on something. Therefore, I expect some good with the bad, and if I only get one or the other, the bias in the news organization becomes very clear and I'm less likely to continue reading their articles. For example, when reading about Trump's impeachment, I care not only about the evidence against him, but also his defense concerning that evidence and an idea of the strength of both sides of the argument. If a newspaper continually stresses one side of an argument, I'll stop reading that newspaper. I've been on the fence about the NYT, and stuff like this doesn't help my opinion about that paper. Obviously one article about a subject that isn't very relevant to most people won't be the only reason I'd avoid a paper, but it is telling that they're willing to stake their reputation on an apparently poorly researched obituary.