Save the balance for the last sentence?

Here is an example of what I find hypocritical of some media.

In a tasty article on CTV's website, we start with a controversial headline 'Outrage in Alberta after feds discovered funding anti-pipeline group'. The article goes on to say that a position is being filled, paid for by a federal summer jobs grant, that will be involved in helping coordinate Kinder Morgan pipeline protests. Oh no! Bad Liberals! Jason Kenney, now UCP leader, formerly of the previous federal Conservative government, weighs in. 'This is what you get with Trudeau, [etc.]'.

In a short statement at the very end of the article, they throw in this little nugget. 'The same position was funded by the Conservative party when they were in power'. That kind of changes the whole point of the commentary, doesn't it? Liberals bad! Bad Liberals! Justin is bad! Oh wait, the last guy did the same thing. The article is rendered meaningless in my mind, but of course Trudeau haters won't make it past the first or second paragraph to see the balance.

So let's review, shall we? Did the former Conservative government give a grant for this position? Yes. Did they champion the controversial pipeline? Nope. Did the Liberals give a grant for this position? Yes. Did they champion the pipeline? Yes. So who exactly is the bad guy here?

Also, it's such a big story, Albertans are so enraged, that the story made it into no other media outlets. Media bias in full bloom.