The "bad faith" canard was always the Left's plan to protect its privileges and power players in the #MeToo era. Whenever they get caught with their pants down, they'll scream the people who exposed them acted in "bad faith" so the truth should be ignored.
This is one of the benefits the Left seeks to enjoy by treating journalism, and even free speech, as a guild privilege for a select group of "legitimate" writers and speakers sympathetic to them. They want "good faith" presumed exclusively for THEIR media.
Furthermore, the Left wants a journalism guild with exclusive "good faith" presumptions because it helps them smoothly move people between political activism, government service, and journalism. They don't want the Right to be able to do that sort of thing AT ALL.
Thus the reporter who broke the Katie Hill story is automatically treated like a bad-faith actor for conservative connections by the same people who found absolutely nothing wrong with George Stephanopoulos going from Clinton White House > journalism > hosting a GOP debate.
For the Left, the lines between government office, partisan activity, big-bucks activism, and journalism have been all but erased. For the Right, those things are separated by high walls topped with razor wire. "Bad faith" is assumed for anyone who dares to cross those walls.
The Left wants to get back to the days when a few network and newspaper editors could quietly decide to discreetly overlook Democrat scandals. Asserting a monopoly on "good faith" objective reporting is the closest they can get. Truth becomes subjective in the process. /end
