This is part of a much larger media regime that, above all, must assume good faith from those in power, no matter their past lies, far-right ideological beliefs, or brash and illegal behavior. Let us call it the “Inverse Power-Skepticism Principle, which can be seen here:

There are simply different editorial standards for people like Musk, who can spend the better part of five years posting white nationalist memes, libeling and lashing out at critics, promoting racist conspiracy theories, and mocking trans people, but still is presented by Respectable Media Outlets, as someone concerned with deficits who would simply wants to “reduce waste” and “find savings.” Meanwhile, those far from the halls of power, Official Enemy States and activists are assumed to be inherently ideological and motivated by political ends. Take, for example, a Times report by Reid J. Epstein detailing some Democrats wanting to meaningfully reform the police in 2020. The word “progressive” is used five times, the word “activists” four times. They are presented—correctly and accurately—as ideological agents with an ideological agenda, not above-the-fray wonks seeking “efficiencies” in crime policy. No such ideological labeling is given to far-right, extremely wealthy political agents. Even those as nakedly ideological as Musk, even after he did a Sieg Heil three times on stage on live TV, the Times continued to orient his attack on the liberal and administrative state as just another attempt to “reverse the seemingly inexorable growth of the federal government, an issue that resonates with some Democrats as well as most Republicans.”