In other words, it's okay to give positive attention to entities who have subverted their audiences in the past, so long as what they're currently saying is warm and fuzzy? Quite an interesting, yet dangerous stance
The reputation and/or background of a source should not affect the criticism of the content.
If the content of an article or video is good, the reputation of the source is not that relevant.
Vice versa again, a outlet having a good reputation should not prevent you from judging a bad article as bad.