No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they're mostly from a few conservative companies should be prominently said, but to claim that they're only conservative is obviously incorrect and misleading.
I believe the GP just hadn't read the complete article but merely skimmed, saw five conservative companies and understood "it's all conservative sites".
I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you?
FTA:
>As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning.
It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.
In the comment I replied to:
> Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?"
As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be.
> It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that?
I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.
I would like to see less of whatever this is on this site.