Is the “elite media” now is trying to “cultivating public consent” as the article says, or - as you say - do they try “to find middle ground”?

Both. As you said in the first few words of your comment, my comment was also “Irrespective of the topic <…>” and instead a direct response to you, not the attached article.

Look at how corporate media tried to justify US illegally kidnapping a president of a sovereign country. It’s against both US and international law, but media tried to manufacture consent for it by saying that Maduro was a bad guy.

Now look at flight attendants union strike in Canada where corporate media represented the postion of the government, the airlines and called flight attendants unreasonable for inconveniencing the travelers by demaning that they get paid for full day of work instead of just when they are in the air. That’s clear anti-worker reporting that hurts working people and defends corporate interests.

Overall, they have a strong bias in narratives <…>

Advocacy journalism is popular for a reason. When average corporate media tries to find middle ground position between someone working 2 jobs to survive and someone owning 10 yacths, it’s refreshing to hear postions that represent 99% instead of 1% of people.

In this particular case, they are pretty open about what they stand for: https://breachmedia.ca/about/

<…> it’s by definition neither independent nor quality media imo.

It’s objectively independent as they are not funded by any single interest group, but actual readers. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their own opinions and perspectives.