Depends on their stance on the issue but individuals don’t necessarily share the views of their employers.

WaPo is by no means worst here. But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can’t be credible.

"But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can't be credible."

But adblockers do not fully solve the problem that the article is focused on. Namely, the use, e.g., by Meta and Yandex, of websockets in closed source mobile apps to listen on a loopback address for requests by mobile browsers, e.g., for tracking pixels.

There are approaches to prevent such tracking that do not necessarily require adblockers running in browsers. If the article mentioned Adblock but omitted other approaches, then does that mean the publisher is not credible.

Ad blockers can and do also block connections that aren't strictly "ads" themselves.

Telemetry for example.

But the point of the comment was that there are other methods besides ad blockers running in browsers. There are often alternative methods that "tech journalists" rarely if ever mention.

Sometimes, these methods are arguably better. For example, some methods can limit _all_ connections, whether the connections are initiated from (a) browsers, (b) other applications or (c) pre-installed corporate operating systems.

Is it true that, individually, Washington Post "tech" journalists might be credibie but their employers would not be credible.

Individually they might, but I wouldn't take advice from their employers.