Okay, so I've got some issues with this.

First, this article only quotes a selection of Brian Cates' tweets. If you click on the last embedded tweet, you'll be taken to the the entire twitter thread which is MUCH longer and... hooo boy does it devolve quickly. Where in the quoted tweets he seems to be very neutral about the media, in the very next tweet in the thread he immediately calls the media a "DNC Media Complex" and continues to conflate mainstream media with the Democratic party.

"But that's okay!" You might say, "I looked at his twitter profile and he's a columnist! He's a reporter! He has to be unbiased! He's trying to warn us about the system from the inside!"

*sighs* Okaaaaay... well, that brings us neatly to my second issue.

Read his twitter profile description: "Columnist for the Epoch Times. Digital Soldier & Citizen Journalist."

Nevermind that nobody knows what "Digital Soldier" means or that "Citizen Journalist" is just a nicer way of saying "blogger", let's focus on what HE puts first

Cates is a columnist, not a reporter. And while reporters can write columns and columnists can report, a "columnist" and a "reporter" are not the same thing. The terms are not interchangeable because the requirements of each position are radically different.

Reporters (or Journalists) are generally held to a ethical standard, not just by the publication, but by their peers.  They typically learn their trade either in the newsroom or the classroom or both and much of that time is spent learning about standards and practices (ethical, moral, and legal considerations or rules). Generally, reporters follow a code of ethics like the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) or the standards and practices utilized by the Associate Press (https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/). Additionally, every reputable news organization has a list of standards and practices of its own; generally overlapping with the previous two, but sometimes with some additional items depending on its focus. For example, ESPN has several specific policies regarding the mentioning of brands in its news stories: sensible, given that most professional athletes are walking billboards for several brands.

Additionally, some news outlets or divisions within news outlets omit some ethical standards simply out of neccessity for their beats (area of focus). For instance, while most reporters refuse free gifts, trips, or products, reporters who cover arts, media, and entertainment often accept free entrance to shows, premium seats to broadway performances, and trips to special press junkets with free food and booze. The industry is aware that there are ethical considerations about things like this, but it's just accepted as "the way things are" and AME journalists are still expected to have a spine and they are checked just as much as anyone else in the newsroom.

Columnists like Cates, however, are not professionally bound to any such code or standard. When you are a columnist, your work falls under the category of "Opinion-Editorial". Meaning that you are giving your opinion and not required to: be aggressively free from bias, fact check your statements, cite your sources, or provide opposing viewpoints. Having been both a columnist and a journalist (and part of the editorial staff), I can personally say there is a WORLD of difference between what is allowed as a columnist and as a reporter. Literally ANYONE can be a columnist: All you have to do is write an article and find a publication willing to publish your work.

And his work definitely found its home at the Epoch Times. Let me give you a sample of his column titles.
"The Mainstream Media Wants the Mifsud Story to Just Go Away"
"Democratic Party Rhetoric Has Led to Another Domestic Terrorist Attack"
"Trump Fools Democrats Again, Is Still Winning Immigration Fight"
"‘Experts’ Keep Insisting Trump Is Doing It All Wrong on North Korea"
"What Did Obama Know About Hezbollah’s Bomb Plot in London?"

All of his columns are rife with supposition, logical fallacies, and rote repetition of right wing media catchphrases. And the Epoch Times LOVES op-ed pieces like this because, as a whole, the publication has an open policy AGAINST unbiased reporting and showing all viewpoints. They actually, literally, have their biases stated on their website. (https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us)

"We stand against the systematic destruction of traditional culture by destructive ideologies such as communism, which continues to harm societies around the world."

You can feel however you want about communism, but being a good news organization means you favor no one viewpoint over another. That you provide the facts and just that. If your opinion columnists want to scream day in and day out that communism is bad and harmful or whatever, that's fine. It's their opinion, after all. But to adopt that stance as a news agency as a whole? How does that exactly fall in line with their policy of providing "credible, quality news that is honest and unbiased"?

Lastly, and most crucially, I'd like to put together the pieces here for you, taking all that I've just said and translate what Cates tweeted into what he is actually, essentially saying:

"I, Brian Cates, ethically un-obligated freelance columnist (not journalist) for the openly biased publication The Epoch Times - whose 'journalistic' articles and editorial decisions sing proudly of its alignment to the right wing (Republican here in the US, the FAR right in Germany) and publishes articles lending credence to UFOs, chemtrails, anti-vax, climate change denial, and evolution deniers - would like to tell you that the Mainstream Media is ALL WRONG about El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius and all others like him.

See, after reading what the police believe to be his manifesto - after all, it was posted a mere 20 minutes before the shooting (plus whatever other reasons the police have for believing he wrote it) - and seeing that it parrots a lot of the same language and ideas that I and the publication I work for use in our content, I have come to the unassailable conclusion that I have zero reason to feel uncomfortable about this because, OBVIOUSLY, he's just a troll. Yes, a troll! Amazing that noone else has thought about this before! Bulletproof logic! I mean, what he wrote sounds SO MUCH like what I read and write, it HAS to be a joke, right? Noone I agree with on multiple fundamental issues would be capable of doing this, right? Of course not! Therefore the manifesto must be a prank. A big joke to mess with Mainstream Media and to get people pointing fingers! Someone went out, killed or injured almost fifty people, made sure they had a manifesto online clearly stating their reasons for doing it, and endure incarceration and/or the death penalty... just for LULZ!

So, with that, we can put aside all those icky feelings and just say that there IS no deeper purpose! That there is no real underlying political motive! See, now instead of feeling worried or concerned that our worldview is shared by mass murderers, we can feel smugly superior that we figured out the joke before the real media -er... Mainstream Media did!"