Well this is pretty normal, this is called business… But also they might not be directly paid, they could be invested in other ways. aka. Holding Bitcoin and ethereum etc… But it wouldnt surprise me at all, that they could be potentially be funded by ethereum in trade for extra coverage, and perhaps a little side-kick deal where they leave out Cardano…
Its a long standing tradition that papers are politically or monetarily invested in what they cover.
Aka. They cover what they believe or are invested in, or they cover what their audience wants them to cover.
There is nothing necessarily wrong in this, but their brand will reflect this over time, and people can make up their own mind to the credibility of such organisation or business.
Publishers do not exist because they just love publishing information, they exist because they are a business, they are supplying a demand and unfortunately is a very bad business, so those who keep the publishers alive are advertisers and businesses that benefit from that coverage…
So a motivator for coverage is often agenda or bias, this applies to any media, which is why as an informed reader you take the source of information into account.
Which is why it is great Charles is pointing this out, but he is merely using everyone as a pawn to put pressure on them, of course he understands why even though he cant outright say so, why they are not covering Cardano.