When you're angry about the Klan being portrayed as the bad guys...

Neither would have any of the other anti-consumer policy changes that are liable to financially molest you.

Maybe look under the large heading "Unsubstantiated claims" which lays out several examples known at the time the article was published. Now you might take issue with the depth in which they cover the unsubstantiated claims as such, but the article you cited here very intentionally and transparently acknowledged the fact that there were problems with the dossier.

Now shall we contrast that with a certain mainstream American press outlet's coverage of the Biden laptop?

I think you might have misunderstood what actually happened in the two examples you cited. In both cases they say the mainstream press took a more cautious approach when the reliability of the sources was questionable.

Let's have a look, shall we?

Shortly after the Post story broke, social media companies blocked links to it, while other news outlets declined to publish the story due to concerns about provenance and suspicions of Russian disinformation.[8] On October 19, 2020, an open letter signed by 51 former US intelligence officials warned that the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."[9] By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.

All that proves is that hindsight is 20/20. At the time the story was suspected by experts to be bogus, and in your view an impartial news media would have run with it anyway? The "fair and balanced" media certainly did. You might also recall that nothing came out of the laptop "scandal" other than a gun charge for Hunter. The idea that the laptop implicated the "Biden Crime Family" remains domestic misinformation. Moving on.

"On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN said it would not publish specific details on the reports because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".[126][134] Following the CNN report,[135] BuzzFeed published a 35-page draft dossier that it said was the basis for the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".

So Buzzfeed published the dossier, and you're mad at CNN? Unrelated, while the more salacious details were never proven, the broader claims that Russia interfered with the election and the extensive ties between Russian nationals and Trump campaign people were true.

TL;DR - To demonstrate how biased the mainstream "liberal" press is, you offered up two detailed examples of them treating unverified information responsibly.

Sure, it's right before the Antifa chapter meeting at the bingo hall.

One side says the border isn't a problem when it observably is and that inflation is under control when it is not.

The other side tells you that American cities are a "war zone" and that immigrants are eating dogs and cats off the street.

Both of these are the same. /eyeroll

This is fair, to an extent, but the "one side is far worse than the other" is an acknowledgment that many people stop far short of.

No, we're at the "prove it" stage.

Sure, it's fair and accurate to characterize the response to those issues by "the left" as such, but I was talking about "the press" which did no such thing. If your point was to dispel the myth of the "liberal media", you did a pretty tidy job of it.

That's because "both sides are bad" is an escape hatch that gets one out of the uncomfortable position of having to critically evaluate the two.

Political parties have become tribes, and now at least half of the country has lost the capacity for being critical of their own. I don't see how this gets reconciled peacefully, let alone amicably.

No actual mainstream press outlet has taken any of those positions, so as usual, you're just making things up so you have something to be angry about.

Fox News started this idea that political reporting always needs to treat both sides of an issue as equally valid, regardless of how closely either side adheres to facts and and good-faith arguments.

"Fair and Balanced" as it has become would demand equal time for Jews and Nazis in a piece about the Holocaust.

Good advice for the people who get triggered over trigger warnings.

If it doesn't apply to you, it's not about you, and it's certainly not threatening you. Just get over yourself.