> Edit: It's saddening that this apparently cannot be said or discussed.
The sad part is that you can't make the distinction between a paper being opinionated and it being propaganda. Plenty of newspapers have historically had a very strong bias but also a strong commitment to journalism ethics and standards.
propaganda, noun: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
Well if it is "opiniated" and has a "very strong bias" I call it propaganda. Again, they are not the only ones and I am not singling them out.
I used a blunt term that seems to ruffle some feathers but it is better to be aware than to take everything we read at face value.
There's a difference between a journalist and an information or an article.
Any journalist or newspaper carries a bias when looking at information. Their ethics and process is what allows them to still publish information that is verified, relevant and to treat topics which they would personally not want to hear about.
If a journalist with a strong bias doesn't check their information and write only what they would like to hear, that's propaganda. But that's not a necessary outcome of having a bias.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
None of what you mention contradicts your previous statement, and mine, that they are "opiniated" and "very biased" or that it isn't propaganda according to the dictionary definition I quoted...
Perhaps the issue is that people associate propaganda with false information (which is what you imply). That is not the case.