What KCL has written about MK is spot on, her information regarding his practices and agenda are accurate. At the heart of what KCL (please correct me if I am wrong KCL) is saying is that MK, in fact, is claiming to be a JOURNALIST when he is not (and to add insult to injury he writes for the most widely read newspaper in the state of AZ: The Arizona Republic); nowhere under his name does it list that he is a Commentary Journalist, Opinion Journalist, or Advocacy Journalist. And while being completely objective is a lofty goal and is a hard thing to achieve for any journalist/reporter, what matters is that the reporter strives/aspires to realize this goal. Not the exact opposite, like MK, of getting as much of your personal opinion and agenda into what is reported while trying to hide your lack of objectivity.
There are four main types of news reporters/writers today; Journalists, Commentary Journalists, Opinion Journalists and Advocacy Journalists. All of which are fine as long as they are clearly identified and defined as to what they actually are. In fact, there are plenty of commentary journalists out there, many of whom I disagree with but respect simply because they are up front and honest about the fact that they are COMMENTARY JOURNALISTS or the like.. Commentary, Opinion and Advocacy Journalism (btw-AJ is especially known for inaccuracies and outright untruths)should NEVER be presented as objective/credible/neutral news reporting (i.e., Journalism in it's true form).
Journalism is about Credibility, Objectivity and Neutrality--the factual information is imparted and the viewer is left to determine what the information means to them without IMPROPER INFLUENCE. It is, nothing more or nothing less than insulting to tell someone how they should think, feel, or respond to news information--and for these opinion/commentary/advocacy journalists to use powerful platforms, under the guise of Journalism, to spew and propogate their worldviews/personal agendas borders on being a propagandist in my view..
So the core concern/issue related to MK's articles as I see it, is simple, he is not a Journalist. It is not about how he looks, whether or not you like his writing style, or even about the content of the topics he writes about...it is about whether he is telling being factual and whether or not he projects his own opinions/biases into what he writes.
FWIW, by definition, his J17 piece was a perfect example of Opinion Journalism and Advocacy Journalism combined, disingenuously masquerading as Journalism.