This is a pretty silly argument, to the point of absurdity. Is the concept of media bias really totally alien to you? Do you honestly categorize media sources between totally credible and totally non-credible? If so please share with us which media sources you consider totally credible? (something telling me that you won't and just trolling as usual) Otherwise either state your counterarguments by citing some sources, or stop these silly attempts at derailing the conversation,
The point is that you choosing which of e.g. Guardian's or any other "western" media articles are credible or not is pretty much a textbook definition of cherry picking. Regardless of any convoluted rationalizations you're making up
For me credibility is at least about facts. If the media or article is stating facts that have not happened, providing data that is dubious or simply false under the pretence that is actually fully accurate then is simply not credible and it is not journalism but disinformation . A different matter is the opinion - the interpretation or conceptualisation of the facts in a gnostical framework.
Most of the articles here are 95% opinion. e.g. "Nazis support Ukraine because the leader of group XYZ says so". The leader saying so is most likely a fact. How real that is merely an opinion - most likely it is just for the gallery.
The fact that the founder of Wagner has swastikas tattooed is a fact, as it is a fact that Putin does use that group so you can say Putin recruits Nazis and it is true. It does not mean everyone in the Ruzzian army is a Nazi or they are used extensively.
The problem here is that some posters tend to think that the opinion given by a newspaper e.g. NYT are facts or are pretending that these are factual truths.