When you compare the press coverage of "X VC-backed startup with product A" to "Y bootstrapped startup with product A," it's sort of evident how corrupt startup media actually is. Taking it at face value is not usually a good idea.
There's only so much money you can make off of banner ads and at a certain point native advertisements are way more lucrative. I wonder how they get around disclosure requirements but I guess it's probably because the articles are never directly funded but there's some other form of compensation in the backend.
Tom Scott made an interesting video about internet advertising regulations a while back. [1]
"Traditional" media makes a bulk of their income from things they remain silent on.
Thypicaly, there are "majority advertisers". Their [combined] advertising spend is itself negotiating power, which typically includes PR fluff articles for agencies.
On top of that, PR agency gives instructions what to write and organizes utterly expensive ads from unrelated entities. Everytime you see an article that screams "that's an ad" or is disclosed as such, well... It is most likely payment for something else.
