That's not how real journalism works. The journalists are separated from the business side. Good publications go as far as prohibiting their editors from talking to anyone who deals with revenue.
Your impression of how real journalism works is a lot harder to believe.
You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? Everyone knows these metrics are _directly_ correlated with revenue.
FB used to drive an insane amount of traffic to these publishers back when our news feeds were full of news articles. They pivoted very sharply and suddenly away from that, which hurt publisher revenues (and views) very substantially.
> You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get?
I think they care, but even so, they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks, not because the org is mad at Facebook. The Times being mad at Facebook isn't what makes people click on the articles. It's people being mad at Facebook that gets them to click. There is no one in the chain of approval for content that would care about the loss of revenue from Facebook and specifically tell them to target Facebook for bad articles.
They would say, "hey writing about FaceBook gets us lots of views, do more of that".
> they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks
Well I don't disagree with that.
> The Times being mad at Facebook
You're trying very hard to separate the corporation from the people. There's plenty of evidence that the journalists themselves are mad at Facebook. As another commenter notes, it's not hard to find podcasts with them complaining about the rise of FB.
There's another reason for journalists to be mad at FB: it's goal is to give everyone a voice. If everyone gets to publish their opinion, and not just people who work for big companies, that makes journalists a lot less important in society.
