And honestly, we should not trust something funded by X to be unbiased towards X anyway, that's just common sense.
It's generally considered bad taste and hypocritical to preach something and not abide to what you preach yourself. In my country a lot of media people are for example writing about embracing immigration and slander anyone who disagrees but studies have shown that the people who work in these media outlets does not live in areas affected negatively by increased immigration to a large extent.
There is a reason why people hate that kind of shit and that's because it stinks and is used by people in power to shit on people without power.
Can you provide some examples?
What would be bad is if he had specifically asked or funded them to make that post. But you can't blindly assume malintent and hypothesize that Google has been funding New America so they can bash on other monopolies.
There is no proof of that, that's just you assuming the worst.
Lots of people who dislike immigration also do not live in areas affected negatively by it. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider their views, although it may influence how much weight we want to put towards them when making policy.
Unless, they of course, create their own media organisations which is happening in every western country and is the core reason for all this "fake news" which is a term ironically often most used by old mass-media that themselves heavily rely on half-truths at best.
Unless you have not noticed a lot of news are being censored systematically on HN when they touch certain topics, some of them is giving SV/IT a bad PR, or poor work conditions in IT , political POV...
references: http://hckrnews.com/ (use all button) http://hnrankings.info/
There's definitely solid evidence of censorship, at some point I'm going to collect the main points into a blog post.
(And that article was about Google effectively threatening to lower search rankings on publishers who didn't add +1 buttons, which is a similar complaint.)