More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.
Media owners want this. They want journalism to be commodities because journalists with reputations can demand higher pay. They can then claim more of the profit.
The losers are the readers and the journalists.
In a sense it's the same process that is turning amazon products into shit. Without trustworthy reputation signals, the lowest common denominator rules.
Or...journalists without a byline have little incentive to "build up a brand" through by appealing to a "side" or sketchy reporting. It cuts both ways.
Taking away bylines simply takes away the incentive to actually be different and stand out for something else.
I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.
A good way to see that it's not is to find out what investors or beltway policy elites would think and hunt for (entirely factual) things which might contradict their narrative.
I cited an example below of an article about github copilot that was hot garbage - like a starry eyed intern had watched an investor pitch.
On the war front one of the things which I have read in milbloggers is that a key goal of Russia's bombardment of the electricity network is to inhibit Ukrainian rail logistics and prevent the front from being resupplied. Is it working? Well, it was only ever "meant" to crack Ukrainian morale so they wouldnt even think to analyze that.
(good military reporting ought to have a bias towards logistics, but it rarely does...)
The end goal is to undermine international support for Ukraine.