They've done that in the past too, but citing sources is hard because usually it's the right leaning media calling out the left leaning media (and vice versa- c

They've done that in the past too, but citing sources is hard because usually it's the right leaning media calling out the left leaning media (and vice versa- c.f. Media Matters against Fox), and it lends itself well to people shooting the messenger by way of "that's just a $slant-ist site" rather than actually evaluating the claims. Random search example: https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contines-Its-Medicare-Advantage-Lies/td-p/1723869 https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contine... Factually true, but misleading in context claims about Medicare. Another, worse example: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-about-the-mh-17-report/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-abou... An NPR reporter misrepresenting a Dutch report on the downing of MH317 as evidence of Russia firing the missile (while the report only says the missile was Russian-made). NPR aside, I reject the notion that journalism can't be objective. Well, not completely, sure, in the same way that we can never completely reach the speed of light. Does that mean we stop trying? No! Does that mean we lower our standards? Hell no! My issue is, I see this concept used more often to excuse misconduct and lazy reporting. "We can't do it, so why try?" If someone claims to be unbiased, they should be held to their own standard, and when bias is pointed out, expected to change their ways, or else acknowledge that their statement about being unbiased was a lie.