Oh I agree, it's by no means just a thing on MN to complain about the BBC or any paper.
And agree strongly that it's always been good practice to accept that every press source takes sort of line, and even the act of what to select will therefore reflect some sort of bias. So critical reading always required.
But I've been struck on MN by more than one poster saying:
"Ooh, I don't read the Guardian after they weren't quick out of the gate reporting the NYE assaults in Cologne..."
OK, your choice.
"...so now I read the Daily Mail because it's so much better in supporting women."
On what planet?
The Daily Mail is not supportive of women. Like some other papers, its business model includes commodifying and shaming women. Though it's happy enough to use women as a convenient vector to attack its other hate groups - and of course vice versa.
One might still want to use the Daily Mail as a news source, regardless. But somewhere along the line, a narrative seems to have developed on MN that "Guardian = anti-women and must be ignored, Daily Mail = pro-women".
Like I say, on what planet?