Since the twitter migration, mainstream media has had a pretty bad bias against the fediverse. I wouldn't listen to anything from the media about any fediverse platform because they're either driving at a preconceived critique (usually it's too hard or unstable), or, don't understand it ... and I'm the sort of person that is very willing to critique the shit of the fediverse.

As to why there's such a bias ... probably a confluence of a few factors:

• Mainstream media doesn't support actual journalism. So any article is probably written by someone on a tight deadline without enough time to actually understand the fediverse or even the will to do so.
• Mainstream media has had a cozy relationship with big-social, especially twitter (and facebook?), and generally feel like mass engagement based platforms are necessary for their business ... and so the fediverse is, on some level, basically a threat to their livelihood.
• Going further ... any form of media that is essentially non-profit and self-organised or hosted is probably a threat to mass media's perceived livelihood, so even on an ideological basis, the core of the fediverse is something between dangerous, value-less or dumb. Therefore, any friction or tradeoff is almost immediately fatal to them.